Real story of anti-GMO sensation Rachel Parent: Idealist or pawn of ‘natural’ marketers?

|

Imagine. You come home after a hard day at school. You’re hungry, so you reach for a bag of delicious corn chips. You don’t know what’s in there because there’s no label, so you eat it…

OMG, there’s GMOs in it! You didn’t know! You might be harmed! That’s why we need food labeling, to protect innocent children being targeted by evil corporations!

That’s the gist of anti-GMO campaigner Rachel Parent’s stump speech, delivered at schools and on television programs around the world. She’s only 18 years old, but the Canadian high school student has become a canny, international crusader in the effort to ‘protect the world’ against the ecological and health dangers of foods made from genetically engineered crops. You can watch her 2014 Tedx talk in Toronto three years ago here.

We urge you to watch this. She is an excellent presenter. The tone of her voice, smug chuckling, and the shake of her her head were all perfectly timed, sending a message that you’d have to be crazy not to agree with her that GMO corn is something you’d want to avoid. That’s why, she insisted, kids have a “right to know”.

Who is Rachel Parent?

Most recently, Parent could be seen in The Hague last year at the circus anti-GMO Monsanto witch burning tribunal. She delivered a grave speech about the ‘evils’ of Monsanto and ‘Big Ag’ and their  “conspiratorial links” with corrupt governments in the US, Canada and elsewhere that is turning the world into ‘chemical junkies’, hooked on the seed industry’s latest Frankensteinian creations, in a focused effort to ‘control the world foods supply–all to serve capitalist greed. Think this description is overheated? Just read what she has written and what she has said.

In case you are not familiar with her name, let us bring you up to date. In her TEDx talk and elsewhere, Parent has said that she was drawn to the GMO issue at age 12, when she had to give a school speech for a 6th grade project. As she prepared for her talk, she’s said, she “saw how GMOs were negatively impacting the entire ecosystem — the environment, soil, water, plants, animals, insects and people. Just everything and everyone.” So, snap, the self-created myth goes, shortly after her speech was well received at her school, she founded an organization called Kids Right to Know to spread what had been revealed to her.

Screen Shot 2016-02-07 at 3.51.22 PMParent became a folk hero among the anti-GMO crowd when, shortly after entering high school, she debated labeling and the safety of GMOs with TV personality Kevin O’Leary on a Canadian Broadcasting Company program. Her ‘debate’ went viral. Headlines such as this one — “5 ways a 14-year-old crushed an arrogant interviewer” — flooded the web.

Like most anti-GMO activists, Parent asks people to support mandatory GMO labeling but does not directly call for a ban of genetic technology in agriculture. But during her talk and in her debate with O’Leary and on other programs, she tries to convince people that the ingredients derived from genetically engineered plants pose ‘hidden dangers.’ Like most pro-labeling supporters who claim to support a ‘right to know’ but in less guarded moments make it clear they would love to rid the planet of genetic engineering technologies altogether (see Genetic Literacy Project infographic and article by Jon Entine here), Parent tries to make her doubts about GM food safety sound science based.

For example, on her website, Kids’ Right to Know, she cites a stream of studies that raise all kinds of safety concerns. They come across as alarming, if one is not familiar with the scientific literature on GMOs. In actuality, they are mostly a combination of fringe research in predatory pay-for-play journals, and a familiar collection of discredited, misconstrued and biased studies reviewed and rejected by some 270 international independent science organizations which have issued statements declaring that foods containing ingredients from genetically-engineered plants are as safe or safer than conventional or organic foods. But Parent presents these fringe, flawed studies as mainstream science, and her fresh sincerity goes a long way toward convincing the credulous.

She also lapses into common strawman arguments and half-truths, such as claiming that Third World hunger is due to poverty and not a food supply issue, when in reality both of those things are factors and the supply issue will get worse as we move toward a 9 billion plus population around mid-century. Here is a well reasoned critical analysis of Rachel Parent’s views by Swedish science writer Emil Karlson, author of the respected Debunking Denialism blog.

But something else is never disclosed on her website and in her talks. Why did Parent suddenly get so interested in GMOs? And how did this precocious teenager explode upon the foodie world with a polished website with layered arguments that mimicked the most sophisticated anti-GMO websites? It wasn’t disclosed in the TEDx talk, nor at the anti-GMO marches and other events where Parent gives interviews and talks, but the Parent family owns a franchise of stores called Nutrition House.

Screen Shot 2016-02-07 at 6.21.53 PMWhat is Nutrition House? Think brick and mortar version of online stories like Mike Adam‘s Natural News and Dr. Joseph Mercola, which are well known as websites peddling dietary supplements and natural products. These products — widely considered unnecessary at best and killer dangerous at worst — are virtually unregulated and their purveyors have managed to block repeated attempts at mandatory labeling.

According to an article on the Canadian Business Journal, “Nutrition House has positioned itself well to capitalize on the $4 billion (Canadian) natural health products industry.” Worldwide, it’s a $400 billion industry — unlabeled and unregulated, with no purity standards or testing.

Nutrition House, her parent’s multi-million dollar business, has more than 70 stores throughout Canada, plus one in Atlanta, mostly in upscale shopping malls. Products include nutritional supplements, herbal remedies, “sports nutrition” (protein powders and such), and a host of other products, most of which come in jars in capsule or power form. Basically, it’s like the supplement section of the Whole Foods Market, and if you look into many of the products, you will see that they’re guaranteed to be GMO-free, and free of almost any nutritional benefit as well.

Rachel’s father, Wayne Parent, is the CEO of Nutrition House. His Facebook page suggest that he himself is an activist against GMOs. In other words, teenage Rachel is not just a leading spokesperson for labeling advocates; whether she will acknowledge it or not she’s a front for the ‘natural products’ anti-GMO movement who have done everything in the power to deny the public a right to know about the very real dangers of many “natural” supplements.

How ironic that the literal poster child for the anti-GMO ‘right to know’ movement is the daughter of a family who has made millions of dollars selling quack notions to the public about supplements while fighting tooth-and-nail to prevent the public from knowing the truth about the scientifically demonstrated dangers of the mostly useless, unlabeled products that they sell. So much for Rachel and her parents commitment to a ‘right to know.’

Because of those concerns, the Genetic Literacy Project contacted Parent and her father’s company by email and through her website contact forms with requests for a statement to include in this article. Neither Rachel, nor her father’s business has responded, but we do hope that they’ll send comments now that this article is published.

Rachel Parent and the Kevin Folta affair

The Rachel Parent backstory — that she and her family are deeply embedded in the anti-GMO industry — helps put in perspective the recent attack by Parent and her advocates against University of Florida plant scientist Kevin Folta. Folta has been a tireless advocate in recent years on the potential risks and benefits of agricultural biotechnology, appearing for no fees at public conferences, university lectures and TV and radio programs, while engaging the public in online chat lines and podcasts and in hundreds of blogs and articles each year. We’ve known Professor Folta for years; he is whistle clean and a dogged advocate for transparency. His undeniable success at campaigning for empirical based science has made him a perennial target for anti-GMO groups, particularly fringe natural product organizations.

The antis finally scored last summer after the organic industry funded group US Right to Know secured emails under various state freedom of information acts of more than 45 professors and science communicators who USRTK claimed had ‘dangerous’ industry ties. Among them was Folta, who has received exactly zero dollars in his career from ‘Big Ag’ to support his research. USRTK cherry picked one email that showed that Folta’s university had received $25,000 from Monsanto as an “unrestricted gift” (university jargon for no deliverables expected) to cover the cost of travel and other incidentals for unpaid talks to various organizations to teach scientists how to effectively engage the public in discussions on genetic engineering.

Folta himself pocketed nothing from these talks, all done for free in open public forums. In one sloppily written article, in the New York Times, Folta was profiled extensively while the work of Charles Benbrook, a well known GMO critic, was only briefly referenced. As it turned out, 100 percent of Benbrook’s research dollars — hundreds of thousands of dollars — came from anti-GMO and pro-organic industry sources, in contrast to the zero industry dollars that supported Folta’s research.

The controversy led Folta to suspend, at least temporarily, his science outreach efforts. But the unsubstantiated attacks have continued, most recently spurred by the Parent family. In an article by Allison Vuchichon on the Global News Canada website, “Documents reveal Canadian teenager target of GMO lobby,” Rachel and her parents maintained that they were the targets of a “GMO lobby” financed attacked headed up by Folta.

“To think at this point, I was on their radar and I had no clue,” Vulchicohon quoted Rachel as saying.

The article highlighted an email Folta had written to a friend suggesting that Rachel’s website KidsRighttoKnow.com was deceptive and that a website should be established to counter the unscientific claims by teaching STEM (science and technology issues) to teenagers. The Parent site is in fact filled with unsubstantiated claims that mirror the mostly anti-consensus science views of the natural products industry — like her parent’s company, Natural House.

Anti-GMOers see it differently. “It’s mostly scientists that they attack, but Rachel is a standout. The agrichemical industry is plainly quite threatened by this teenage schoolgirl, so that’s why they’re after her,” the article quoted Gary Ruskin, the co-director of USRTK, who had procured the emails. Ruskin referred to Folta as the GMO industry’s “attack dog” — an absurd comment to anyone who has met Folta or is familiar with his engaging, professorial and non-confrontational style. The article portrayed Folta as the industry’s serpent’s head targeting a helpless Canadian truth teller:

Later that year [2014], while attending a roundtable in Washington, D.C., Folta was asked by public relations firm Ketchum to make a video about Parent.

The email request to Folta read, “How do you agree/disagree with 14-yr old GMO Labeling activist Rachel Parent, who is, in her own words ‘not anti-science’ but ‘for responsible science and ethical progress?’”

But, the email added, “we try to refrain from personally attacking folks, so don’t worry too much about Rachel specifically.”

Nine days later, a video appeared online that was quite specific, entitled, “How do you agree/disagree with 14 year old GMO Activist?”

The video discussed Parent’s activism, her belief that all GMO food products should be labelled, and addressed her apparent lack of scientific knowledge.

“So when I think about answering Rachel Parent, who’s the activist child – well, young woman – who’s running the website ‘Kids Right to Know…The things I just adore about Rachel is that she’s clearly very articulate, clearly intelligent,” Folta said in the video.

“The problem that I have is when Rachel starts to let non-scientific thinking really kind of cloud her final decision-making process.”

Parent said she finds the tone of the video “almost degrading.”

She also defended the information on her organization’s website as scientifically sound.

“People can say whatever they want about me, but as long as I know what I am doing is right, their opinion doesn’t matter.”

The article, written with a decided bias by Vuchichon, who gave a platform for a renewed attack on Folta and did not disclose the financial conflict of interests of the young campaigner and her parents, let to a torrent of vicious emails and social media personal attacks against Folta. The fusillade was touched off by GMOFreeUSA using an attack voiced by Stacy Malkan, the co-founder of USRTK.Screen Shot 2016-02-07 at 5.34.13 PM

Malkan and USRTK co-founder Gary Ruskin then mounted a Twitter offensive, echoed by the anti-GMO chorus that haunts the Internet, sweeping in such influential anti-GMO campaigners as Nassem Taleb, Pete Meyers and Vani Hari, the self-proclaimed Food Babe.

Screen Shot 2016-02-07 at 5.38.38 PM

Screen Shot 2016-02-07 at 5.45.09 PM

Rachel Parent jumps in to promote this conspiracy mongering to her followers — again, never disclosing her family’s personal financial stake as fringe medicine promoters in trying to discredit anti-science critics like professor Folta.Screen Shot 2016-02-07 at 5.42.10 PMThe attackers that sought to defame scientists and communicators like Folta ended up exploiting an idealistic, if misguided teenager; she’s become a tool for their ideological goals, although she is old enough to distance herself from their views. Again and again, her parents and their allies portray her as a valiant warrior and innocent victim of bullying, when no bullying words were ever spoken. And Parent has even endorsed and retweeted false allegations against a public scientist.

Anti-science fanaticism?

What we have is this: A scientist critical of Rachel’s deceptive claims on her website and the distorting impact they might have on innocent children suggests a science-based remedy — a STEM-based website to counter misinformation — exactly the kind of engagement we would hope that public scientists would be doing. No website was ever made, and the domain Folta suggested as a venue for a genuinely open discussion of the science, “kidsrighttotruth.org”, is actually owned by Parent’s father. Folta’s off-the-cuff comment was twisted into some sort of attack on Parent coordinated by Monsanto.

These distortions continue the trend established and propagated by USRTK: Misuse FOIA to secure tens of thousands of emails, cherry pick short passages, and then re-interpret them in false narratives that are damaging to scientists. All in all quite a fiasco… in this case prompted by Rachel Parent — who the media, by and large, has portrayed as an idealistic teenager promoting the ideals of transparency and democracy.

The truth, clearly, is far different. Parent is entitled to her opinions, of course. But let’s be clear. Whatever her personal views, she is servicing the perspectives of campaigning ideologues who would like nothing more than oversee the end of genetic engineering, CRISPR, gene editing and other technological breakthroughs that have proven so beneficial–though not without complications. This mission coincides with the financial interests of the natural products and supplement industry (and her family’s multi-million dollar company), which has fought tooth-and-nail against the public’s ‘right to know’ when it pertains to their own products.

From mommy bloggers to the President, we all recognize how important it is for young women to become trained and active in STEM disciplines. In the case of Parent, it is sad to see ideology steer her away from science and into promoting denialism and its profitable products. Everyone has acknowledged that she is bright and articulate. Unfortunately, she’s being manipulated as a popular puppet to push bad science and unvetted products. That’s why we should not be critical of her personally. However, we must be critical about what she represents and of the those, including her parents, who are using her: she’s become spokesperson and dangerous role model for young people who see embrace the reactionary view that science is an ideological tool and little more. Rachel Parent is a poster child; not for bullying or the excesses of Big Ag but for the brazen hypocrisy of those who use the cloak of ‘right to know’ to deceive the credulous. 

Jon Entine is Executive Director of the Genetic Literacy ProjectFollow @JonEntine on Twitter.

David Warmflash is an astrobiologist, physician and science writer. Follow  @CosmicEvolution on Twitter.

  • mem_somerville

    Heiress to quackery. What a sad future. But probably comfortable.

    • Eric Bjerregaard

      At only 16, she may still believe her parent’s nonsense. Let’s delude ourselves and picture that first family dinner confrontation after she learns the truth and her conscience kicks in. Before you dismiss that as a long shot. Remember, if Eric learned most anybody else can as well. So, the real question becomes “Is her conscience going to survive and function?”

      • Kevin

        Who are you to suggest what her conscience is like?
        There is an old and true phrase “It takes one to know one.”
        Another says “What goes around comes around.”
        It is coming around to Monsanto.

        • Eric Bjerregaard

          Hey, I was giving her the benefit of the doubt. I was speculating that her conscience hasn’t been destroyed by her abusive parents. I know some folks who work for Monsanto we think good profits will be coming around.

    • Carl G Craver

      16 years old? Folta probably has bike shorts older than that.

      • Kevin Folta

        I do. But it is organic chamois.

        • Loren Eaton

          Either way, too much information;-)

        • linked1

          You sack of shit.

          • Canfan

            You should like that bit sounds organic.

  • Loren Eaton

    It takes enormous stones to send a relatively un-educated child into cyberspace to do the bidding of this industry, using her as an intellectual shield….and then complain when she is called on the carpet for inaccuracies. For her parents and the rest of these yoyos to call these attacks personal is almost laughable. But then again, child or not, she appears to be playing the game…”Threatened by a Powerful Voice.” Message to the parents, if you don’t want your child to be criticized, do your own dirty work.

    “This coincides with the financial interests of the natural products and supplement industry (and her family’s multi-million dollar company) which has fought tooth-and-nail against the public’s ‘right to know’ when it pertains to their own products.”
    Hmmm, doesn’t this make her a shill?

    • Mark Smith

      It takes more stones to attack little girls that, at least, did their homework. something you obviously didn’t.

      • Eric Bjerregaard

        And it takes idiocy ta attack a correct commenter. Especially since you have zippo to back your self up.

      • Loren Eaton

        I’ve been making the very products she is attacking since well before she was born. So I’ve been doing my homework for 30 years. Its great that a teenager takes an interest in something other than emojis and video games, but that doesn’t change the fact that she has no idea what she’s talking about. If the homework she’s doing refers to how well she parrots her parents’ point of view…then I guess she’s doing okay.

        • Kevin

          Rachel makes far more sense than you. She is seriously out classes you as a in her communication style. It would appear that as you stated in your first sentence above you have a bigger conflict of interest than an articulate intelligent girl named Rachel.
          On the surface you try appear to be a reasonable man. Look at what you say and you will see an unethical conflicted person in the mirror. Calling Rachel a shill reveals your true self. Be careful. Like me Rachel doesn’t bow to bullies.
          Have a great day.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            An “unethical conflicted person”? Well now, that would be you, Boynton, would it not? Turns out you’re the one bullying and shilling around here…for Moms Across America…

            http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/kevin56292

            Of course you don’t “bow to bullies”, Boynton, ’cause you are a bully, what with trolling and sniping away on these comment threads and accosting innocent grocery shoppers with your crackpot proselytizing. Not very classy, Kevin.

          • agscienceliterate

            Is Kevin a mommy? Awwwww….

            This is how Kevin describes himself, in that link you posted:
            “I am against GMOs and Food that isn’t organic. I am for a lot of things. We’ll have guns, guns, guns till Daddy takes the T-Bird away.”

            Whatta guy.

          • Kevin

            I am always impressed when I read your wise words.
            Thanks again…

          • Kevin

            Nice Try.
            Go back to square one and try again.
            Regards.

          • MrPurple

            “She is seriously out classes you as a in her communication style.”

            No matter how much you polish a turd, it’s still a turd.

          • Kevin

            True. Monsanto is still a turd.
            You are just another paid defender of the indefensible Monsanto.
            I never would even attempt to polish any such thing.
            Rachel does have more class than I do, and Infinitely more than you.
            She is the real deal.
            I bet Monsanto just goes crazy about her as she is so far ahead of them and their paid commentators.
            It is no wonder that they can’t hide under a rock.
            The message is what counts, not my communication style.
            Enjoy your day…

          • MrPurple

            You’re not even making sense. You have no evidence that I am a “paid defender” nor could you EVER find any evidence. Alternatively, Rachel benefits from an industry that bilks people out of billions of dollars and exempts itself from the labeling standards she demands. Why do you believe her, then? Why don’t people have the right to know about the products that her parents have gotten wealthy selling? By your standards, you should be calling bullshit on her. Clearly, you’re a fraud and a Useful Idiot.

          • Kevin

            Rachel is a young woman with tremendous influence. Were she on the side of Monsanto I would wager she would earn far more money than she does. Your ridiculous assertion is just that.
            Monsanto is a huge corporate polluter whose influence is purchased from government. Monsanto is defended by those who are unable to make an honest living, aren’t very bright or both.
            Either way Monsanto looses.
            Hopefully you may see improvement working in a new position.
            There are many industries that make billions. The health industry, the food industry to cite a few.
            Monsanto sells poison and bilks out of billions of dollars.
            Sure there are others. The others aren’t eradicating the pollinators.
            Monsanto excels at that. Monsanto does things that are indefensible and ruins our environment.
            I don’t need to resort to insulting you as you did me. You did that for me.
            Regards,

          • MrPurple

            Unfortunately, there’s no evidence of your claims (ie bullshit). She’s “influential” because people who hate Monsanto will gladly eat up any bullshit served to them without question. But you don’t even care about the fraudulent bullshit and deceiving people, do you? All you care about is the hate.

          • Kevin

            If you were legitimate you wouldn’t have incentive to care about where the rest of us spend our money. Were you one of the guys on “Reservoir Dogs?”
            I am impressed…

          • MrPurple

            1) I don’t care where you spend your money. You’ll note that I have said nothing about it.

            2) I do care when people spread anti-scientific fear mongering fertilized with bullshit and zero evidence.

            3) You’re very close. Mr Pink wanted to be Mr Purple instead, but there was already a Mr Purple on another job.

          • Kevin

            We have the same concerns. I care about people and I have 2 friends that were stricken with cancer from agent orange in Vietnam.
            Monsanto said that was safe for people, as they still say roundup is as benign as table salt. That is not zero evidence as far as I can see.
            The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior. Figures lie and liars figure.
            Bees are in real trouble and now so are we.
            All the money in the world won’t fix this. I intend to do my part to educate and motivate. Monsanto takes the terminate position.
            I fertilize my garden with organic worm castings from an organic producer. He only feeds organic compost to his worms because he wants them to stay alive.
            No bull necessary.
            For the bees.

          • MrPurple

            Your worry about Agent Orange is a red herring. Especially since it’s connection to the ailments associated with it is doubtful.

            “Monsanto said that it was safe for people”

            Did they? When? Where? Also, did you know that they were one of nine companies that produced it and they did so at the request by and to the specifications of the US government?

            “Bees are in real trouble ”

            Except they’re not. The worldwide bee population has been increasing for years now. A fellow who owns an apiary nearby pointed out that the declines, a few years ago, occurred on large bee farms only. If Roundup were the culprit, wouldn’t it impact the bees at small apiaries too?

            You can care about people, Kevin, but that’s NO excuse for accepting and spreading bullshit.

          • Kevin

            Why bother. You aren’t for real.
            Regards anyway.

          • Kevin

            Likewise. I have to say I don’t have faith in anything you put out. All diversions. The Bees in the US are seriously in trouble and you know that.
            If Monsanto thought dioxin was such a problem why was it used against them and us. why did it stay in use here. Ever hear about Love Canal? You make no sense.
            Regards

          • MrPurple

            “All diversions”

            Really? Then you say:

            “Ever hear about Love Canal? ”

            Pot, meet kettle. Wtf does a city government knowingly building schools on a waste site have to do with this Rachel chick? If anyone is responsible for red herrings here, it’s you.

          • Kevin

            And you have stayed on topic? Who ruined Love Canal? Why was it poisoned?
            You really lack any knowledge on the topic and only try to divert. Red herring?
            Landfill with Love Canal legacy still poses danger – Investigative Post
            http://www.investigativepost.org/2016/02/…/landfill-with-love-canal-legacy-still-poses-dang...
            Feb 10, 2016 – After telling residents a landfill with a Love Canal legacy posed no danger,officials declared it a Superfund site … This activity continues today. The info is plentiful.
            Right Click to go to EPA Websites above and below. Easy to see.. The EPA even admits it. Type love canal into your search engine and you will see much more.
            https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwis3s2xgZ7PAhUs6oMKHbcVDeoQFghVMAs&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.epa.gov%2Faboutepa%2Flove-canal-tragedy&usg=AFQjCNHZOMwAFCHCtx6hI-Yb7jnk9mWxDA&sig2=baM8RRiRKzXTpCPL1LvHJg
            Why do you even claim to represent the truth? The answer is so obvious.
            Thanks for helping me

          • IJR

            What does that have to do with GMOs?
            How many acres is your garden?
            What are your qualifications?

          • Kevin

            1) Plenty. 2) Plenty. 3) What are yours?

          • IJR

            You are a coward and not a man.
            How many actual acres boy?

          • Kevin

            It would take a man to know a man.
            Please stay on topic.

          • IJR

            How many acres is your garden?
            Why do you think that is comparable to commercial farming?

            Stay on topic idiot.

            Go get those minnows.

          • Kevin

            It must just hurt when you can’t bully me.
            Please stay on topic. This is not about you or me. This is a serious topic.

          • IJR

            You are being bullied? Ok. Be stronger.

            What I posted could not be more on topic, unless you are wildly off topic.

            You tried to compare your tiny backyard garden to commercial farming.
            It is ridiculous. Do you think nematodes are feasible for thousands of acres?

            You brought it up and now you eant to say it is off topic.
            Seriously, you are not a man.

          • Kevin

            I eat bullies for breakfast. Not a man? How would you know? By what you said since it takes one to know one you only expose yourself as not a man. I can agree. Seriously.
            Two nice Salmon this afternoon 5 and 9 pounds.

          • IJR

            How many acres is your garden? What is your yield per acre? What is it in your tiny brain that makes you think the way you garden is viable for commercial farming?

            Do you make compost tea?
            Do you know how much compost tea it would take to apply effectively to 1,000 acres? The beneficial microbes would not survive the application. It would be very expensive to make it on site. Offsite manufactue of compost tea would kill the beneficial microbes in transit.

            You have not thought this through. This is way too complex for you.

            Your version of commercial farming are not sustainable and actully bad for the environment.

            You seem unable to think for yourself. You likely parrot ideas that sound good when sipping Chardonnay after yoga class, but do not really work out in the real world.

            I would love to have an actual conversation about farming with you, an exchange of ideas, but you are out of your element. You are unable to support your opinions with anything but claims that I am paid by Monsanto.

            Can’t you see how ridiculous that is?
            Why not try using some sort of scientific or logical evidence to support your ideas instead of stories and conspiracy theories?

          • Kevin

            Gee, it’s too bad, but you won’t realize your repetitive pathetic request. Compost tea? Why would anybody think the tea thing through? You really have run out of ideas when you resort to this. Tea!
            I hope you recover soon and soon.
            To your health…

          • IJR

            I use organic compost tea in my garden. It is a great way to grow vegetables with out any fertilizer in my prepared soil. If you were any kind of organic gardener like you claim, you would know all about compost tea and beneficial microbes. I guess you are just a poser in addition to being an idiot.

            Your lies about your imaginary garden are cute, but not relevant.

            I am trying to fathom what kind of fantasy is running through your idiotic mind regarding comparing your imaginary garden to an actual farm.

            You are not smart enough to have this conversation, so it confuses you. I get it.

            Go take a nap.

          • Kevin

            I conclude you cannot be anything more than a commentator funded by Monsanto and that must bother you. Like John Wayne said “Life is hard, it’s harder if you’r stupid.” Indeed your life must be very hard.
            Those of you who read this may want to read “Altered Genes, Twisted Truth” by Steven M. Druker to see how these guys operate and more. “Altered Genes, Twisted Truth” by Steven Druker.

          • IJR

            Your conclusion is beyond idiotic. It the last gasp argument of the very stupid.
            My life is great. I am not deluded by charlatans like you, so I have that going for me.

            Have you read any of the reviews of Druker’s book?
            He is a hack, albeit much smarter than morons like you that think I am paid by Monsanto to insult your lack of intelligence.

            It is so great that your response to me is that I am a paid shill.
            Even if you were right, you still have brought nothing to the table but a hack writer’s book that is full of lies.

            You are a tremendous moron. Like a woman you are unable to use logic and critical thinking.

            You dont even know how to garden and you want to tell farmers how to do their jobs.

            It is incredible that you remember to feed yourself.

          • Kevin

            I consider more than Monsanto planted reviews. I know Jane Goodall by reputation and that is what I consider.
            If he is such a hack, you wouldn’t react as you do. Keep hiding.
            I don’t tell farmers how to do their jobs. I am happy to show that trusting Monsanto is like picking Ted Bundy up hitchhiking. He lied he fried.
            Read “Altered Genes, Twisted Logic” By Steven Druker. He is one attorney who does his homework and beat One of the most hated corporations. http://www.bloomberg.com/…/america-s-most-loved-and-most-hated-comp...
            Again thanks for the help.
            Gratefully,

          • agscienceliterate

            You have posted that drivel before, Kevin. Junk book, junk science.

            And you’re durn tootin’ you do not “tell farmers” how to do their jobs – they’d throw your sorry Calvin Klein jeans-wearing butt off their farm, into an organic manure pile.

          • Kevin

            You just don’t have anything but insults. Why should I tell farmers how to do their jobs. My message is to drive Monsanto into oblivion. You are really afraid to have the best most objective book on all of this read by anyone.
            One of my close friends is an editor who I just gave the book to. I intend to teach another community ed class on this topic.
            “Altered Genes, Twisted Logic” by Steven M. Druker.
            Those who attend class will be getting a copy my compliment.
            I regret to inform you that I never give in when it is a matter of principle. I do this for no compensation as I don’t need it.
            You could only dream of attaining my level of success. My nightmare is that I would have to make a living supporting Monsanto as a self proclaimed agscienceliterate wimp.

          • agscienceliterate

            Kevin –
            1) you do in fact “tell farmers how to do their jobs” if your (illogical, twisted) “message” is to “….drive Monsanto into oblivion.” Maybe you didn’t notice, but farmers willingly buy, and pay more, for GE seeds from Monsanto and other companies.

            2) You are pushing Druker’s quack-filled book. “Objective”?? By what fool’s standards? He sells fear and pseudoscience, and you shuffle along right behind him. Do you get paid for that? You must, as you post this quack book on every one of your posts. Every one. Druker knows nothing about either farming or genetically engineered foods, and can’t make money as an attorney, and live$ off the profit$ of $elling $ham book$, which you then peddle yourself.

            3) Your level of “success” is irrelevant to the quality of lives of billions of people who suffer from food insecurity. Your level of “success” smacks of first world white boy privilege, Starbucks, urban sanctimony, and sucking at the trough of lies and misinformation, which you peddle without a trace of introspection.

          • Kevin

            You must have a lot of fear going on. I guess it does make sense. I would be like that if I was as confused as you appear to be.
            Don’t worry. It will all be fine someday.
            You would be wise to start with the fact that you know absolutely nothing about my family.
            Your confusion must be overwhelming.
            Tell the truth because the way you are going shows that you are forgetting your lies.
            It always goes that way in the end.
            Psychopaths get caught when they make the same mistake. Someone notices.
            Say hi to Farmer with a Dell. You guys have a lot in common. I could add to the list. Just look at the history of your up votes. Hilarious.
            I will use this example for my own purposes as I educate others.
            Remember the Bees. Do you dream of being surrounded by them and wake up in a cold sweat?
            The lack of pollinators caused by Monsanto are a real danger to food insecurity.
            Regards…

          • IJR

            Ah yes, every bad review, bought and paid for.
            You are as predictable as the tides.

            Your implication that farmers are rubes being conned by Monsanto is hilarious. You are an idiot that thinks a back yard garden is comparable to large scale farming.

            With GMO corn we use less pesticides and herbicides and get better yields. We would even get larger yields if we could grow hemp.

            I am not sure why you think I would intentionally make less money.

            Would you like to take a 15% pay cut at your job scrubbing toilets?

          • agscienceliterate

            Wait, doesn’t he get 4 cents for every ridiculous post? Doesn’t that get him enough money so he doesn’t have to scrub toilets anymore? Gads, it’s hard being a shill, I guess.

          • Kevin

            Your implication that I feel farmers are “rubes” is opposite of truth. If anyone does that it is you. I retired quite awhile ago. No money issues except where to spend it and who to help with it.
            You really are a cutie. “Altered Genes, Twisted Logic” by Steven M. Druker.

          • agscienceliterate

            Kevin, you post a reference to that trash book filled with pseudoscience (junk science for profit) written by a quack attorney, in every post. Every. Single. Post.
            I have concluded that you get 2.5 cents for every reference to this garbage fearmongering that Druker sells because he can’t make $ as an attorney. You are a shill for his book, but you are not really compelling at it, as I highly doubt you have convinced anyone on this site to buy this book. (We know all about it, bro.). Maybe your rate should go down to 1 cent per reference, since you aren’t doing a very good job of pushing Druk’s lies.

            And yes, you are indeed very condescending to farmers. And to bioscientists. And to anyone who does not buy into your rigid and ignorant yuppie activist mindset about GE.
            I think if you are looking for someone else to help out with your money, you should make a BIG donation to ole Rache, who doesn’t think twice about the irony of demanding to know “what’s in” [sic] our food, but who supports her parents’ refusal to disclose what is in their magic supplements that they sell in their multi-million $ company.

            And definitely you should eat organic. Eat non-GMO certified.

            You can shill Druker’s toilet-paper-worthy book if you bring a bunch into Chipotle’s for lunch, by the way.

          • IJR

            So we are not being duped inot buy GMO seeds?
            Glad you figured it out.
            I am a businessman. If there is a better way to grow corn, I will do it.
            If you want me to stop growing GMO crops, you will need to pay me about $300,000 a year.

            Repeating the name of a laughing stock of a book is not a source. If you would like to cite something specific to back up your dubious opinion, that would be great.

            Ain’t nobody got time for pseudo science.

          • IJR

            Why do farmers use GMO seeds if they are not rubes?

          • Jason

            Still shilling for the lawyer & his ridiculous conspiracy theories huh?

            Can you point to what part of that book actually shows any evidence that GMO foods are harmful? Because with out any harm, there’s really no need for the conspiracies either. Don’t feel bad, Drucker couldn’t point it out to me either.

          • agscienceliterate

            Drucker can’t make enuf money lawyerin’, so he sells fear.
            A rebuttal to this self-serving quack:
            http://www.yourdoctorsorders.com/2015/03/altered-genes-drukers-new-book-is-filled-with-logical-fallacies/

          • agscienceliterate

            You have pretty low standards for your scientific literature. Ole Drucker is a self-serving quack, pure and simple. Your go-to guy, eh? Figures.

          • Right. When you realize that you are facing people who actually know the stuff, it seems that you can only do one thing: calling them shills! Apparently, it’s the only way you found to save face and to avoid having to acknowledge that you’ve got no clue whatever about what you’re talking about. Unfortunately for you, it’s quite obvious to most of us here!

          • Hugo Cabret

            Kevin: There is nothing serious about you whining about being “bullied”. Man up, little boy!

          • Tim Bretthauer

            Kevin, I have read all your posts and it is clear you only read anti GMO websites and let them confirm your bias. Your ignorance of facts and science is actually very pathetic. You ask why we care if we aren’t paid. I would ask why you care if you aren’t paid? Is it because of passionate, albeit misguided beliefs? Ever think just maybe others have passion about their KNOWLEDGE of facts rather than just a belief. Maybe they know the fact that without science we will not be able to feed the world’s population and that organic is harmful to the environment? See, you don’t consider this. You spew BS but have no actual facts. Your best argument is “you know it is true.” The difference between idiots like you and people who care about actual science is that we analyze both sides of the argument. We look for actual provable bias, fraudulent scientific conclusions and plain flat out bad studies. You on the other hand just look for anything that confirms your bias and run with it.

          • IJR

            Are you going to go fry bigger fish, little minnow?

          • Of course you have no faith in whatever MrPurple says, since you have faith only in people who believe the same things as you! Basically, since you don’t know how to counter his response to your claims (meaning that your accusation of “diversion” is moot, since you’re the one who brought up the subject of agent orange and the bees….), you just run away saying you won’t pay attention to any of this…not because they are wrong (you seem to have no way to prove them wrong), but just because you don’t want to. You have your nice little mannicheistic worldview, where Monsanto is evil and organic agriculture is saint and nothing will divert you from this conviction. Nothing. Not even reality. If reality doesn’t fit your worldview, you’ll just ignore it. So simple.And if anyone wishes to make you see reality, you’ll just turn your back on them, close your eyes and stuck your fingers in your hears while singing very loudly: “lalalalala….I don’t hear anything….lalalalalaaa….I don’t hear anything!”

          • IJR

            How many acres is your garden?
            Coward.

          • IJR

            You spend your money on what you think is organic, but there is a good chance it is not organic.

            How many acres is your garden?
            Why are you so terrified of that question?
            You seem to think that your garden is comparable to commercial farms.
            Why are you such an idiot?

          • IJR

            Rachel who?
            How many acres is your garden?
            What are your qualifications?

          • Hugo Cabret

            Rachel is a pawn, and her parents should be flogged for allowing her to make an ass out of herself for flat-Earth envrio-Nazis fools like you.

          • tfahland

            You really should study the science.Every top scientific organization goes completely against what Rachael is saying, she is being used big time. But hey, her family is laughing all the way to the bank.

          • Hugo Cabret

            Kevin, you and your enviro-Nazi ilk are more than welcome to forage for food on your own. Why must uneducated, uninformed Libs like you complain so much about topics of which you know $h!t?

          • Hugo Cabret

            C’mon, Kevin. Must you use the same tired term, “bullies”, as a crutch? Seriously, Dude?

      • Warren Lauzon

        If she did her homework, she must be home schooled – because she gets almost everything wrong.

  • gmoeater

    One of these days, she’s going to listen to her own words, and she’s going to translate that “right to know” into the “right to think for herself.” She’s a teenager! And unless she is totally brainwashed, she’ll start questioning, if she’s a smart kid. If she doesn’t, then she’s just one more thoughtless teen, like many thoughtless adults. She’s old enough to decide whether she’s being used or not. I trust that she will realize that she is.

    • linked1

      You are a pack of reprehensible and disgusting corporate shills.

    • Twan

      You think too good of the world. I see Rachel’s media presentations as a step towards one day taking over her parents business. She’s building her own Network and influence. And in time she will shed that teenage Image, transforming into a young Manager. She will enjoy her power and Position and People will admire her success. What she’s doing now is not lying but selling a product and if she’s good at it, nobody will care about how she did it. Instead of a 2nd Mother Theresa, she’ll be a second Paris Hilton.

      • agscienceliterate

        I agree. She is certainly old enough now to know what shilling is, and that she is doing it for her parent’s company, and that she is a hypocrite for touting “right to know” while not insisting on the same standard for whatever goes into her parent’s products.
        I think she is a wannabe for Food Babe’s wealth that is gained through fearmongering. Her own little website where she sells stuff is just the beginning. Promote fear, maybe even write a book to exacerbate that fear, make money from the book, and then also solicit funds and sell products that will counter the scary thing. It works for Food Babe and Mercola and Oz and Pollan, right? Such a formula for success.
        She is quite old enough to know her hypocrisy is obvious, and disgusting.

  • Stuart M.

    I remember being attracted to that Youtube “14 year-old crushes arrogant interviewer” only to be dismayed when I found out the interview was about GMOs. But I persevered and soon determined that the interviewer was wiping the floor with her, and I said as much in the comments under the video. It’s interesting to find out her parents absolutely oppose the public’s right to know when it comes to the ingredients in the natural supplements they are hawking.

    • Carl G Craver

      I found it interesting when researching reviews of the debate, the opinions of anti gmo crowd were either “he’s a bully” or “he’s condescending”.
      I thought he was very respectful considering she kept interrupting and parroting the same things.

      • Warren Lauzon

        That is the main problem I have with her. Ever since she first came on the scene, she has been parroting almost the exact same words and lines without fail. She keeps on citing the same failed and discredited “studies” even though she has been told hundreds of times why they are not good sources. I am doubting very much that she has done any actual fact checking of her own, she seems to be just a pawn liking the attention she gets.

      • diannep

        talk about bullies… Monsanto does that superbly!

        • Carl G Craver

          I thought this discussion was about Folta vs Parent, but I’ll humour you.
          What specific examples do you have of Monsanto’s bullying tactics?.

      • Mark Smith

        Do you work for the Heritage Foundation or this rag?

        • Carl G Craver

          Neither, I’m a retired marine technician. No shill bucks here.

    • Mrzyphl Moon

      I remember your posts and Warrens on that video. You and others slammed that thread with science until the anti gmo’ers skulked away with their tails between their legs. I don’t believe Rachel could have read those comments and not have been convinced she was wrong.

      • marcdraco

        You can bet she doesn’t read anything that does not exist within her echo chamber.

        • Mark Smith

          Kinda like you, except she’s not paid to post like you are

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Stupid shill gambit.

          • agscienceliterate

            And wouldn’t you be surprised if Eric, or any of the posters including myself who support GE, weren’t paid? You just can’t wrap your rigid activist brain around the fact that maybe we support science and farming, and don’t get paid. On the other hand, who pays you to spew this garbage?

            You are a denialist of the highest order if you believe ole Rachel doesn’t get paid. Look at her own website. She sells stuff to benefit her “cause.” And her misinformation directly benefits her parents’ anti-GE woo that they spread in order to promote their own business. She benefits directly from shilling for her parents. Oh, but THAT kind of shilling is ok with you, right, Mark?

            Hypocrisy at its most elite. Irony at its finest.

          • Warren Lauzon

            And what makes you think that any of us are paid to post? Do you have any actual evidence? And yes she IS paid to post – she is supporting her parents business.

          • Charles Rader

            Warren, typically the evidence is that you disagree with Mark. No decent person would disagree with Mark, so you can’t be disagreeing for an honest reason. You must be getting paid.

          • Warren Lauzon

            Oh that is great evidence. I disagree with someone, so I must be paid. Do you realize just how freaking idiotic that sounds?

          • Charles Rader

            Warren, of course I realize how idiotic it sounds. I was being sarcastic – that is, I was stating Mark’s case in such a way that it is obvious that HE is being idiotic.

          • agscienceliterate

            And you notice how Mark did a snark-troll and hasn’t responded. Typical snipe with nothing to say except idiotic allegations.

          • Kevin

            Mark must be bright when compared to you and me. He makes his point and unlike us he moves on.
            Mark probably has better things to do. I bet he is productive and happy.
            Regards…

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Too bad, Kevin, you don’t know how to make your point and move on. Looks like knowing when to move on has been something of a conundrum for you over the years — seems you’ve often had help deciding that for you in your career. From job to job, now reduced to grunt work and trolling the internet on behalf of Moms Across America…

            http://www.beyond.com/0499180A-CA0D-41CC-B2EE-ED58918537FA

            http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/kevin56292

            Enough Kevin, time for you to make your point and move along, loser.

          • agscienceliterate

            So he really isn’t a “Kevin,” and he’s a … mommy?

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Well, I suppose those mommies don’t have much of any standards. They are happy to bring on board a washed up old bankster to work his trained magic at exploiting good honest folks.

          • agscienceliterate

            Well, from here on out, I will refer to him as Mommy Kevin. He should be very proud. I hope they pay him well.

          • Damo

            Just as an aside, I recently saw a billboard with Moms Across America advertisement. Disgusting.

          • Damo

            It wasn’t that clear to me either, I was sure you were one of Mark’s paid shills.

      • Warren Lauzon

        I don’t think she ever actually reads anything on her FB, twitter, or YouTube posts. Not once has she ever actually responded to any question, comment, or correction. I am beginning to suspect that her daddy’s company has a PR person actually handling most of it, as she seems to have no real opinions of her own.

        • Mark Smith

          Like the PR company you work for?

          • Svengali

            That’s some weak-assed passive-aggressive insinuation, what are you, 9 years old?

          • agscienceliterate

            When they ain’t got nuttin’ else, they drag out the ole shill accusation syndrome. Indicative of nothing left to hurl. He knows Rachel shills, and is cranky that there’s no intellectually honest way to defend her, so he attacks those who call Rachel out on her (and his) hypocrisy.

          • Warren Lauzon

            What company would that be?

          • Warren Lauzon

            Seriously, is that the best you have?

      • Mark Smith

        GMO are not science. they are hackers that barely know what they are doing. Science- I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

      • agscienceliterate

        She lives at home. Her parents own a multi-million $ anti-GE business. If she reads anything scienc-y, I am sure her parents spin, misrepresent, and twist it, which is represented 100% in her own ludicrous and totally bogus comments.

        But one day, Rachel will be 18, not 16. She will start to think for herself. Or not, if she wants to pursue a career as “Food Babe Wannabe.” Her choice whether she wants to opt for the “easy road” of political activism based on misinformation, in order to make money, or to be intellectually honest and start looking at the data and thinking for herself, free of her parents’ heavy-handed influence.

        • Bliss

          wow picking on a minor now. You are morally bankrupt.

          • agscienceliterate

            Awwwww, poor widdle Rachel. She’s not a child. She’s 16. Old enough to know what she is doing, which is directly shilling for her parents’ million-dollar anti-GE natcheral foods scam. Look at her own website — she even sells her own stuff for $, just like Food Babe! Actually, I think she is gearing up to be the next Food Babe wannabe, the queens of woo.

            Blissful, tell me – if I had a kid who had a website that promoted my GE seeds business, would you hammer anyone who said that kid was shilling for GE? Didn’t think so. Have you looked into the hypocrisy mirror lately, dearie? Your irony is amaaaaazing.

          • Kevin

            You really are something!
            Insult Rachel because you have no valid point. it shows what kind of person you really are.
            I bet when you look in a mirror you see no reflection at all.
            If you had a kid who promoted GMOs I would have my kid expose the lies.
            Have a wonderful day.
            Until next time.

          • agscienceliterate

            Kevin, she is 16. I am attacking her hypocrisy for shilling directly for her parents’ business. That is my point. You put her words on a pedestal because she is under 18? Pretty shallow criteria for deciding whether a person is just an uninformed mouthpiece for her parents’ megabux business that relies on anti-GE propaganda. You join Rachel in her blind hypocrisy. Irony supreme.
            Thanks for affirming that I really am something! Yay for me!

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Ol’ Kevin has told of his creepy propensity for approaching innocent young women in supermarkets and lecturing them on how he thinks they should live. I guess he admires this young woman, Rachel, because she lectures too, and claims to live the lie. ‘Course, it’s all just sales pitch — Rachel is just another up-an-coming snake oil salesperson. She is so successful at BSing at age 17 that I’m surprised Kevin isn’t more envious and jealous than admiring.

          • agscienceliterate

            Ol’ Kevin is confused. First he was in adoration of Food Babe and her vacays, and now there’s a new upcoming young whippersnapper who wants to be a contenda in this race to the bottom of the barrel for slime promotion by these two women, of anything that doesn’t directly financially support their own “natural” products industries. Both of these disgusting women make money directly from promoting pseudoscience and lies.
            Kevin is confused – should he move his adoration from Food Babe to Rachel? Support them both? Root for one over the other? Donate to both of their shill ventures? A real soap opera drama for him.

          • tfahland

            too bad all real scientists disagree with you. oh yea, they are all skills too, my bad. sheesh.

          • Warren Lauzon

            Minor or not – she has made herself into a public figure. If she can’t take the heat, get out of the social media kitchen.

  • First Officer

    Of course Parent’s parents are totally complicit in this. As a minor, Rachel cannot do any of this without their permission and support.

    • gmoeater

      Absolutely. And like most teenagers who rebels eventually against her parents, she will likely see right through this. If she doesn’t, then she will still be 18 in 2 years, and won’t have the “cute widdle teen takes on the big scawwwy world of big bad cowpowations” anymore, and she will be just one more pro-organic, pro-supplement activist competing with Vani Hari to see who can fling the most non-science poop. Yawn.

      • Loren Eaton

        I wish I could agree with the “see right through this” aspect. She is SUCH a parrot at this point, I’m not sure it will go away. Time will tell. But you’re right, in 3-5 years the way people respond to her will change completely.

  • GinRummys

    It’s not just any parent that will whore out their teenaged daughter to promote hypocritical fear of beneficial biotechnology while making millions by selling snake oil.

    • agscienceliterate

      When she is an adult in 2 years, someone will take her to task — hard — for shilling on behalf of her parents’ business. Growing pains, I guess.

      • Kevin

        It looks to me that you already do. Hopefully you will make a full recovery.
        Regards…

        • agscienceliterate

          Actually, I was referring to Rachel’s growing pains as a 16year old under the control of her parents and their lies about the perceived competition by GE foods, to their “natural” business. You lost that in context, seriously? Your comprehension skills are pretty weak there, bro.
          Eat organic. Eat non-GMO certified. Eat Rachel’s parents’ business’ supplements. Donate to Rachel on her shill site.

  • agscienceliterate

    Jon is very kind. He says we should not be critical of her personally. I disagree. That would be true if she was 7, or even 12, but age 16? I do think she is old enough to be responsible for what comes out of her mouth, and for her actions. Unless she is being forced to do this, with threat of abuse or punishment from her parents (which absolutely is child endangerment and abuse), then she is old enough to know what she is doing, and for that, I hold her personally responsible for her shilling. She doesn’t get to play the ignorant little-girl card anymore.

    • Mountainwilliam

      I totally agree. I have 15 and 17 year old kids. High school kids today are far from uneducated and innocent and certainly as capable of wanting to make money for stuff as anybody of any age. It’s called golden handcuffs. You get use to living a comfortable lifestyle so rationalization of your efforts is easy.

  • nicholasmcgill

    Do any of you criticizing this young woman actually understand the real issues here? I’m not talking about the science of GMO’s. Most reasonable folks (including myself) are down with the safety of eating them. I’m talking about the destructive system of chemical intensive farming, long distance shipping, toxic runoff along with fertilizers, seat of butterfly host plants, conniving efforts of Monsanto and other groups to control the genetic information of crop plants, and more. The finally straw for most reasonable people is the resistance to labeling. If it’s better (and different enough to be given a patent), label that stuff and brag about the quality. There are big problems with GM based agriculture, why not accept it?

    • agscienceliterate

      All baloney. All studies show otherwise. You are reading Internet junk and repeating it here as fact. And, FYI, foods have been patented since 1930.
      And as I just said on another post, you do not have the right to force politically-motivated and useless labels on my food. Eat organic or non-GMO certified. Voters have rejected labeling in the last four ballot elections in four states. They saw right through your “right to know” as a straight demonization of GE foods.
      And yes, I certainly do understand the issues here. Quite well. Thank you for asking. Please continue to read, and educate yourself about GE food, and not from this parrot of an ignorant teenager who is just shilling for her parents’ alternative supplements business.

    • JR
    • Warren Lauzon

      What does the fact that she is young have to do with it, aside from the fact that at her age there is no possible way she could have any substantial background or knowledge of any real science, agriculture, genetics, or nutitrion – yet she babbles on about them with the same tired old talking points week after week.

    • Mountainwilliam

      Glyphosphate resistant crops reduce agricultural chemical runoff and soil erosion by reducing tilling of the ground that causes it. As for the other issues, maybe people should direct their efforts at those issues such as monculture rather than focusing on GE seeds. Farmers will just go back to tilling and using older, more toxic herbicides and spray more toxic insecticides instead of using BT seeds which essentially converts farms to a cleaner version of traditional organic control of spraying live BT bacteria, most of which washes off into the water table. To think that farmers will just abandon their farming methods they have doing since long before GE seeds and adopt some utopian plan to return all their land to five acre plots of single families full daisies and rainbows is absurd. That would require 10s of millions of people to abandon their current lives and return to an agrarian lifestyle.
      The government’s role in mandatory regulation is to protect the public from compelling public health threats and to protect fair trade. Labeling does nothing for the first and violates the second by giving certain methods of farming a government sponsored marketing advantage to the benefit of them and to the detriment of everybody else. It’s funny how the same people who critisize biotech patents that expire after a defined number of years but enable companies to pay for the work put in to the technology before somebody else can make money off their work are also usually the same people who support never ending copyrights of musical artists and authors to own their intellectual property.

      • agscienceliterate

        Excellent points!

        Clarification of patents and copyrights: musical artists and authors get copyrights (on ideas and artistic creations) which last the life of the creator, plus 70 years. Patents on products do expire; the patent on Roundup has expired, for example.

        http://www.clickandcopyright.com/copyright-resources/copyright-trademark-or-patent-whats-the-difference.aspx

      • Peter Olins

        Forgive my ignorance, but can anyone explain to me why monoculture is an “issue” for some people? Obviously, without crop rotation, yields for some crops decline, and pests can build up, but surely this is just an issue for farm management, not some larger moral issue?

        On a smaller scale, yields from my backyard tomato and cucumber patches have increased steadily for 10 years. In fact, some of the healthiest plants have resulted from random self-seeding—presumably these plants didn’t get the memo. So what’s the problem?

        • IJR

          Their yoga pants are binding up.

    • agscienceliterate

      Your technical points and your assumptions are erroneous, but I will let farmers respond to them.

      Your point on labeling is moot. Voters in the last four statewide labeling initiatives defeated misleading labeling (CA, OR, WA, and CO). The president just signed a national labeling measure that you will no doubt oppose.

      You should definitely stick with organic and nonGMO certified foods. You want labels? They are labeled in big politically-green letters for you. Tens and thousands of products. No thinking required!

      And you might even consider contributing to Rachel’s new business, selling stuff on her misinformation site, just like Food Babe does. Rachel would appreciate your money, I’m sure. http://www.kidsrighttoknow.com is where you can click n’ support her shilling for her parent’s business (and her own new woo business).
      You’re welcome.

  • Ken Gallaher

    Another genetic lunacy project hit piece.

    • gmoeater

      Ya got that right. She’s selling genetic lunacy in order to promote her family’s anti-GE based business.

      • marcdraco

        Oh hello Ken… Nice to see you offering an unbiased opinion on something you know lots about.

        Oh wait, we’ve been here before haven’t we!

        • Warren Lauzon

          Yeah, still waiting for him in vain to ever say anything actually substantial. All he has is the usual lineup of shill and similar accusations.

      • marcdraco

        After the jump is Ken’s (entire) review of The Fear Babe (a book I’ll take bets he still hasn’t read) and he’s still defending his position in the comments. The only connection we have with Monsanto is through Facebook friends but the book was written without any oversight from anyone.

        It’s as hilarious as it is sad since the book contains very little about GM technology and a hell of a lot about how we’re being lied to.

        All backed up by independent experts that Ken considers are all part of a huge conspiracy. On that’s so big in fact, that it would have imploded under the weight of its own bullshit years ago.

        ==== (note his phrase “hit piece”) ====

        A typical hit piece from a Monsanto “spokesman>”

        • agscienceliterate

          I have read and highly recommended your excellent book. The reviews critiquing it show clearly that the posters have not read it and are just knee-jerking. Just like little Rachel here.

          • marcdraco

            Thank you, I’ll pass that on to my co-authors. It’s always good to hear feedback from real customers – it’s such a shame that we can’t get through to the naysayers because they would most likely learn that their fears are like the monster under the bed: imaginary.

    • Loren Eaton

      This would be a stinging indictment indeed if it weren’t coming from a person/group of people who defend sending a scientific lightweight (it is not her fault, all 14 years olds are) out to bag on a technology she knows nothing about. It is totally apparent that the goal here is to get the message out in such a way that you, her parents, Vani, Zen and Gary don’t have to be the grown ups and defend your own position. This amount of shielding would make Saddam Hussein proud.
      And don’t be under the impression that the civility (slack) with which she is treated in any way diminishes the fact that what is saying is complete BS or extends to any of her handlers.

      • Warren Lauzon

        It is actually a bit sad that so many people give her a pass on her ignorance just because she is young. BS is BS, no matter what the source is.

        • marcdraco

          She’s a puppet and her parents are pulling her strings. They are a fucking disgrace.

          • agscienceliterate

            They are pimping her. And she is old enough now to know that. I agree with Kevin — soon she will start thinking for herself (gasp!) and will either continue this sham, knowing that she is under the thumb of her parents who want to use her to promote their own anti-GE business, or she will start thinking about it more critically for herself.
            And Kevin, keep doing what you are doing, educating young people. Of course activists will say you’re a shill (yawn), but you have such support from the science community that what they think is irrelevant in the end.

    • Warren Lauzon

      So what about the original source that you totally ignored?

  • Well done! thX :)

  • Geoffrey Ryland

    Am I glad that in England, the majority of us do not fall for the con tricks of companies like Nutrition House and the useless and even life threatening products they sell. It always amazes me how gullible Canadians and North Americans are to spend their hard earned money on such useless trash and shame on that girls parents for using her as a tool to spread their lies.

    • GinRummys

      Not so fast, captain superiority….

      https://www.google.ca/search?sclient=tablet-gws&biw=1280&bih=667&q=UK+natural+health+products&oq=UK+natural+health+products&gs_l=tablet-gws.3..0i30j0i8i30.23759.26585.0.28359.9.5.0.0.0.0.216.718.0j3j1.4.0….0…1.1.64.tablet-gws..5.4.714.QfQe_JpaJbY

    • Luckily, not all of us are as gullible as that in the US either. But the idi0ts sure do seem to be getting better at gaining Internet access.

    • Warren Lauzon

      That is not really true I suspect. I think they just make a lot more noise here in North America.

    • 013090

      I’m not sure about the U.K. specifically, but in general the E.U. is far more anti-GMO than North America. N.A. is fairly pro-biotech while the E.U. tends to be far more reactionary to these new technologies.

    • agscienceliterate

      They are pimping her. Clear and simple. Disgusting.

    • linked1

      You should be glad that in the UK GMO labeling is required by law.

  • Things her dad likes on Facebook? Seriously?

  • morphd

    Here’s a ‘different’ take on Rachel Parent…

  • Greg B. Brandon
    • GinRummys
      • Greg B. Brandon

        ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM: philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

        • GinRummys

          CAllingme out for an ad hom after you posted an ad hom is not very intelligent, Greg.
          If you are going to use conspiracy theory pages for sources, expect to have them, as well as yourself mocked and shamed.

          • Greg B. Brandon

            Hello. The material on this and other topics at https://www.corbettreport.com/ is replete with citations and/or links to primary source documentation. Even if one disagrees with everything Corbett says; to ignore the prodigious amount of links to primary source documentation on the site; and his repeated exhortations to “follow the links and make up your own mind”; is myopic, and akin to “throwing out the baby with the bathwater”. “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it”.

          • agscienceliterate

            You pimping for this report or something? You sure reference it enough.
            Oh — and I have an educated mind, have entertained your thoughts, and have thoroughly rejected them.

    • Warren Lauzon

      Once you link to the Seralini study, you have lost 99.97% of any credibility.

      • Greg B. Brandon

        Oh.

        • agscienceliterate
          • Greg B. Brandon
          • agscienceliterate

            Corbett Report? Seriously?? That is a quack opinion piece site. It is not science. If you are stuck on Seralini as “proof” of your credibility relative to rats and tumors, there is no point in conversing with you. You have shown your silliness in sticking to this very debunked study.

          • Greg B. Brandon

            ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM: philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

          • gmoeater

            That’s all ya got, Greggo? Article about ad hominem, and article from an opinion site about Seralini? You keep posting those two over and over again. Your mind is stuck and needs a reboot. Groundhog day is over.

          • agscienceliterate

            Goodbye, Greg.

          • Greg B. Brandon

            enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-014-0014-5

          • Greg B. Brandon
          • agscienceliterate

            Just more Seralini crap. Read the many issues with Seralini’s study, please, before you come back with more nonsense. Quoting from his own website does not constitute credible citation, in case you wondered.

          • Peter Olins

            Have you any idea how lame it is for a French professor who is ridiculed by his peers—and got a paper forcibly retracted—to have a personal website where he continues to peddle the same ideas?

            Personally, I feel sorry for the poor students who have to put “University of Caen” on their resumes when they’re looking for a job.

          • Greg B. Brandon

            Hello. On the subject of “have you any idea how lame it is?” and websites, do a web search for “Genetic Literacy Project funding”.

          • Greg B. Brandon

            Hello. The material on this and other topics at https://www.corbettreport.com is replete with citations and/or links to primary source documentation. Even if one disagrees with everything Corbett says; to ignore the prodigious amount of links to primary source documentation on the site; and his repeated exhortations to”follow the links and make up your own mind”; is myopic, and akin to “throwing out the baby with the bathwater”. “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it”.

        • Warren Lauzon
      • Peter Olins

        Almost no-one who cites the Seralini 2012 paper to prove a point ALSO explains what they think it means. It has almost turned into a kind of curse-word—rather like something blurted out by a schoolchild, for emphasis.

      • Peter Olins

        Panchin & Tuzhikov recently wrote a great rebuttal to the “smoking gun” papers by Pusztai, Xu, Seralini, Carman, Malatesta, and Bohn.

        Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26767435

        • Jason

          Thanks for posting. I hadn’t read that. It definately illustrates the importance of proper statistical analysis.

          • Peter Olins

            I forgot to mention that Seralini’s bogus claims were debunked in this paper even WITHOUT correcting for the distortion caused by multiple comparisons. (Too bad that the editors and reviewers for a prominent toxicology journal missed this).

        • Rickinreallife

          But wait, aren’t Pusztai, Xu, Seralini, Carmen, Malatesta and Bohn entitled to automatic acceptance of their work. No one has a right to critically review their work or question their findings, right?

          • Peter Olins

            Sorry: I’m not clear about your comment—almost certainly ironical, but maybe not effective for people not familiar with the topic?

            Too bad that the Panchin/Tuzhikov paper is behind a paywall. What’s needed is someone to “translate” it into language that’s accessible to the general public, e.g. on GLP.

  • Greg B. Brandon

    Who funds you?

    • NotHyperzombie

      Who funds You??

      • Greg B. Brandon

        :)

        • NotHyperzombie

          Makes sense you are funded by the emoji industry.

  • Greg B. Brandon
  • Greg B. Brandon

    Incidentally, I appreciate the generally civil nature of the interactions I’ve had here today. Thank-you, and thank-you for the links. I did click on them; read the articles, and click through to many of the links accompanying the material. I hope you do the same with the links I shared. “Truth does not fear investigation”. Good night.

  • R M

    I think Rachel Parent makes very good sense, as far genetic-literacy is concerned.
    On the right to know:
    Monsanto thought it can sue a neighboring farmer for using their seeds, when the seeds merely blew over into the farmers property. I think it would suffice to say, that if I don’t want to eat what you obviously invented and possibly own, that is my prerogative. Simple as that. Why do I NEED to eat your intellectual property or its derivative? You invented it, you keep it, and if you want to protect it, then list it as an ingredient on the package!

    After all, if I read a book, and it derives its information from someone else’s intellectual property, I expect the author to source it! Same with an item made in a certain country. Labeling a product is pertinent.

    Second, if I get sick from your “code,” and so do others, I should be entitled to source the cause, prion or other material, and hold you liable in a class action. Similar to a manufacturer adding an unsafe chemical to a substance and then retailing for human consumption, litigation is expected. States should create laws that create an automatic criminal conviction for companies and engineers that produced seeds to farmers that yielded any form of illness.

    Third, if soil is contaminated by pharmaceuticals/chemicals leached from the plant, you fix it and the runoff into streams. Your company should pay for the environmental cleanup and be held liable vicariously– no limits to financial damages.

    Fourth, your seeds need to be unable to pollinate, and be sterile, if you own it. After all, if I write a computer code, unauthorized replication onto another network, would be considered a breach, and I would be liable.

    Fifth, non-GMO seed banks must be preserved and funded by law to prevent loss of original genetic material, since we are making sterile seeds. These seeds should be made available to farmers at nominal prices.

    Simply put: you created something, so you protect it, and you put a leash on it or pay for it! IF you don’t understand vicarious damages, you and your shareholders plus insurer better!

    If you can play nice, we all can too.

    • Biron_1

      “After all, if I read a book, and it derives its information from someone else’s intellectual property, I expect the author to source it! Same with an item made in a certain country.”

      What a poor analogy. Let me school you. Monsanto licenses the seeds and dictates certain terms. It does not demand that producers include the label on their package. That agreement between Monsanto and the producer is their business, not yours.

      When you produce your own food, you can negotiate terms that suit you.

    • agscienceliterate

      RM — On your erroneous points:
      1) Monsanto has not sued for inadvertent cross-contamination. (Nor have conventional farmers, when organic poorly controlled weeds blow into their crops). Organic certification is not hampered with small amounts of non-GE.
      2) Sickness? Unsafe? Wouldn’t that apply to all crops, not just GE? Think organic Chipotle when you start talking about criminal conviction. You have any credible evidence of GE being unsafe or causing sickness?
      3) Runoff is much reduced, and less toxic, from GE crops than from organic crops. Would you apply damages to whatever type of farmer has contaminated soils and water?
      4) Sterile seeds were considered, but rejected, by seed companies. There are no GE sterile seeds. Activists like you have slammed the concept and have erroneously stated that Monsanto (and others, presumably) have sold sterile seeds. Now you are taking the opposite tack?
      5) Irrelevant since sterile GE seeds don’t exist. Seed banks already exist.

      I think it would be helpful if you talked to a patent lawyer about the complexity of these issues, rather than just posting your unrealistic opinions based on lack of fact.

      • R M

        1 Monsanto has sued farmers claiming they used their seeds, when in fact they had not. They later pulled back after a backlash, but they tried.

        2 Chipotle was responsible for poorly managing their facilities, allowing for contamination. Ecoli, and norovirus, are pathogens which result in restaurant closure and liability already.

        3 Farmer runoff is already an issue, but plants that produce their own chemicals provide unchecked environmental liability, especially with respect to biopharmaceutical engineering. We have banned farmers from using unsafe pesticides, including nicotine ironically. By adding potential financial liabilities, we can force manufacturers to engineer plants with greater response to the community and environment.

        4 I am not an activist, and have no playbook. Sterile plants makes more sense if you are producing biopharm and crop you later might regret having out there.
        5 Seed banks exist. Yet, corn could be an example of a crop contaminated by gmo, such that original corn varieties are hard to come by, even when sold as organic. Hence, old varieties need to be preserved.

        • gmoeater

          Your responses are so ludicrous and unsubstantiated, and repeated without citation, that they don’t even deserve an attempt at a credible response.

    • GinRummys

      Monsanto did not sue anyone for having seeds accidentally blow into their fields.
      They sued a farmer who intentionally planted their seeds without paying for them.
      Nice try.

      Want a comparable situation?
      Someone emails you a copy of a song. You didn’t ask for the song, but you end up liking it and play it on your radio station, which makes a profit from playing music.
      The copyright holder of that song finds out that you didn’t pay for the right to play the song, asks you to do so, and you refuse.
      They sue your dumb ass and win.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser

      • R M

        Really. We own seeds under trademark now? Monsanto patented the neem tree in india, and defended it until they were proven to have not actually modified the tree to begin with, and thus didnt own it. Taking Monsanto to court may seem harsh, but it had to be done, since they claim ownership of genetic material they didn’t even create nor modify.

        • gmoeater

          Seeds of all types, including organic, have been patented since 1930. Get over it.

        • agscienceliterate

          Um, duhhh, yes. Patented for almost 90 years. Read, and quit pontificating.

    • GinRummys

      Second.
      Nobody gets sick from GMOs because they are GMOs.
      If someone gets sick from GMO food, it is for other reasons, like it was contaminated with salmonella, or if someone left a GMO salmon out in the sun to rot and then ate it.

    • GinRummys

      Third.
      This applies to all farmers, including organic, who use more toxic pesticides than GMO do.

      https://risk-monger.blogactiv.eu/2015/11/12/the-risk-mongers-dirty-dozen-12-highly-toxic-pesticides-approved-for-use-in-organic-farming/

    • GinRummys

      Fourth.
      Why?

    • GinRummys

      Fifth.
      Why do people need a law compelling them to do something they already do willingly?
      Do you think the government should take sperm and ovum samples from Nobel prize winners and preserve them?
      Or from every animal species on the planet?

      http://seedsanctuary.com/

    • GinRummys

      Sixth.
      Your arguments are all invalid.

      Hitchens Razor.

    • Warren Lauzon

      “..Monsanto thought it can sue a neighboring farmer for using their seeds, when the seeds merely blew over into the farmers property.”. Uhm.. no. That never actually happened, though it keeps getting repeated by the anti-GMO activist sites.
      “..Fourth, your seeds need to be unable to pollinate, and be sterile..”. So in other words, you think that the so-called “terminator gene” is a good thing, unlike most anti-GMO activists?

    • hyperzombie

      “that if I don’t want to eat what you obviously invented and possibly own, that is my prerogative.”

      So you want a label for all patented crops? You do know crop patents have been around since the 1930s.

      “States should create laws that create an automatic criminal conviction for companies and engineers that produced seeds to farmers that yielded any form of illness.”

      What, I don’t get this point? Do you want to automatically prosecute Kiwi and peanut seed farmers? What about soy seed farmers? Celery? Rhubarb?

      “Third, if soil is contaminated by pharmaceuticals/chemicals leached from the plant, you fix it and the runoff into streams.”

      Legume farmers wouldn’t like this very much. Legumes fix N and it leaches.

      “Fourth, your seeds need to be unable to pollinate, and be sterile, if you own it.”

      Yea, good idea.

      “Fifth, non-GMO seed banks must be preserved and funded by law to prevent loss of original genetic material, since we are making sterile seeds. These seeds should be made available to farmers at nominal prices.

      They are, and non gmo seed is available, everywhere.

      • R M

        Prosecution is for health problems caused by engineered foods. Idealistic, yes, realistic probably not.
        The idea is that biopharma is creating plants that grow complex medicine and chemicals. If this continues, I doubt there will be much to stop it from contaminating regular crop, and from leaching through the land and water. Nitrogen is bad, but still workable. Unless you want the med in your food. If we can’t keep regular non-native species from spreading, how are we going to prevent this spread. Idk.

        • hyperzombie

          “The idea is that biopharma is creating plants that grow complex medicine and chemicals.”
          Freaking awesome technology. I don’t get why people are against this tech, makes no sense. Meds exist in plants now, what is wrong with making this better for people?

          ” I doubt there will be much to stop it from contaminating regular crop”
          So you don’t really know anything about farming or crops, or crop breeding…
          Let me ask you a question, how have farmers been able to maintain the genetic purity of popcorn, sweet corn, edamame, Indian corn? How come apples are not all the same? Peppers? why is there broccoli and brussel sprouts, you do know that they can cross breed right?

          “how are we going to prevent this spread. Idk.”
          The same way farmers have prevented the spread of all other crop traits,, Like think about it, while you are munching on benefote broccoli or a macintosh apple.

  • Kevin Folta

    I didn’t want to comment because I’m involved in the story. However, I have to chime in.

    I don’t blame Rachel. I do think, and always said, she’s sharp and articulate, and someone I have a very strong positive opinion of. I’ve always said that.

    The good news is that a smart young woman will eventually see where she sits in this discussion. I’m confident that she’ll one day support technology and freedom to operate for those that choose it.

    Frankly, I hate this whole story line. Vuchnich and Global Canada started a horrible misrepresentation of me. The good news is that everyone sees through it. I just wanted young women to get excited about STEM. That’s what I do.

    They don’t realize that I walk the walk. I have supported women in STEM for years. I spend crazy amounts of time in classrooms and teaching kids. I don’t have to do that. I do it because it is important.

    They can call me a bully, say it was Monsanto paying me to harass Rachel. That’s just not true. My head hits the pillow knowing facts and evidence are with me, and that I wish nothing but the best for Rachel.

    It is important to be passionate. She’s got that. Most kids don’t. Now I’m excited to see her filter that passion to help others. I believe she’ll do that, and impress us all. Just watch.

    • linked1

      You are a despicable sack of shit. All of you shills should be ashamed. Not that that’s ever going to happen.

      • agscienceliterate

        Rachel goes on the circuit to directly promote her parent’s business = not shilling.
        People interested in science and farming tout biotech’s advantages = automatically shilling.
        Truth about shilling:
        1) You have to be paid, or you have to financially benefit in some way, in order to be a shill.
        2). Seed companies that sell GE seeds do not need to pay posters to tout the environmental, financial, and farming benefits of biotech crops. They are doing very well enough on their own.
        3). Thanks, though, for the compliment that those of us who do post have posts that are insightful, brilliant, and compelling enough to warrant shill payment.
        4.). It is always harder to grasp a more nuanced truth — that there are numerous reasons to support biotech – than to simply slam the whole argument with your own version of the “truth.”

        • Jason

          To be fair, I have come across actual Monsanto “paid shills” on social media. They are easy to spot for a couple reasons…. 1) They tend to be FAR more polite and professional than most of us on here who are fed up with all the dunder-heads. And 2) they freely admit it. In fact, I came across one who told everyone on the thread “Trust me, I’m the only one on here who is actually paid to do this”. My impression is that there are very few of them and that hey really are more focused on engagement with the public rather than touting any technology benefits.

          • agscienceliterate

            They certainly have a lot more patience than I do! And a lot more knowledge.

          • Peter Olins

            Anyone who admits that he/she paid is not a shill, but a PR professional.

            Personally, I’ve never understood the problem that some people have with paid promotion. I expect that most companies in the U.S. with over 100 employees use some kind of online promotion. The real question is whether what they say is accurate or not. I can even think of a few one-person operations that still pay someone to blog or comment for them.

          • Jason

            Well, yes. Shill is the activist word used to dismiss anything they say without having to prove it to be false.

          • Kevin Perkins

            This discussion board
            is full of HIM shills

          • Jason

            Is that different from a HER shill?

          • Kevin

            People who are honest just do the right thing as they see it.
            Paid PR professionals = Paid spin doctors. The result is advertising gets a bad name.
            Trust your mother but cut the cards.
            Respectfully…

          • Kevin

            Investigate Ketchum Public Relations. Monsanto pays them to pay writers. If yo9u really looked you already know this.

          • Jason

            And I should care why?

          • Kevin

            Maybe you don’t care. It does appear that way.
            1) Because perhaps you should look for new commenting work. 2) Maybe helping to bring Bayer down, as you are unwittingly doing now for us Anti GMO/Monsanto folks. That appears to be your strong point, so maybe you can find legitimate work somewhere if you are willing to make a lateral move and start at the bottom.
            3) Your paycheck from Ketchum or Monsanto is likely to dry up. They are looking for effective commentators and it’s obvious that they are struggling to find them among their current commentators.
            After all it’s a big world as well as a small world. If people treat Earth as our only planet they would care.
            Care not, if you wish. It shows.
            Choice is good.
            The good individuals who work for Monsanto should have an easy time finding work when Monsanto goes down. When that happens there may be more competition so it would be good to start early, or better yet somewhere else. Read “Altered Genes Twisted Truth” by Steven M. Drucker. Find it on Amazon.
            For beginners “The World According to Monsanto” by Marie-Monique Robin is a good starter book.
            For the others perhaps valet work where the tips are good would be a good choice. Were I you would avoid being a writer of fiction because generally believe ability is an element of that. Non fiction would be a poor choice since that takes real work.

          • Jason

            LOL.. Drucker & Robin…. and you’re lecturing ME about the truth. That is rich!

            It appears as though you’re not much of an authority on the issue. I think I’ll stick with the opinions of every major scientific body on the planet. Call me crazy I guess.

          • Peter Olins

            So this is where you get your science, Kevin—Steve Drucker, an attorney and former EVP at Maharishi University? Surely, it would make more sense to cite true experts such as Jeffrey Smith or Zen Honeycutt?

          • Kevin

            Like many lowlifes there are scientists without a moral compass. Their jobs are dependent on falsifying conclusions from Monsanto sponsored studies.
            A kid could get to the truth by looking at the bee population being decimated. It’s more than a coincidence. Interesting that the die off came when GMO plants, designed to make their own pesticide came along, on a huge scale,
            We need our pollinators to live. Monsanto is another story. What quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, usually is a duck.
            The scientists that are working on “studies” may be good scientists. If they are they are morally bankrupt.
            Why would those like you even care who eats what, that is without a financial incentive?
            May Monsanto rest in peace.
            Regards…

          • JP

            “Interesting that the die off came when GMO plants, designed to make their own pesticide came along.”

            You do know that bees don’t eat the plants… right? Or do you just have a gross misunderstanding of how Bt crops work?

        • linked1

          Rachel has nothing to gain, except the fulfillment of her obligation to the truth, by calling for GMO labeling. Monsanto and the army of shills working for them, represented in this forum, have everything to gain monetarily. You are a despicable shill. Shame on you.

          • agscienceliterate

            Incorrect. Rachel’s family has everything to gain through using their daughter to promote fearmongering about GE. Their whole family industry is based on the sale of “natural, organic, anti-GE” marketing.
            Again, you honor me with your belief in the persuasiveness of my own arguments, that you would deem them worthy of shill payments. But then again, which specific seed company should pay me? Additionally, you will look at my comments and see that I constantly advise people to eat organic and non-GMO certified, if they have so much problem with the science of biotech food. Do you think I should also be compensated by the $60 billion organic industry? Or have you thrown any pretense at consistency, logic, and critical thinking out the window in your activist anti-Monsanto anti-GE zeal?

          • linked1

            The problem with GMO is not merely the risks or unhealthfulness of the end product, it’s the destructiveness to soil quality, heavy dependence on pesticides, sterile monocrop seed production, and the neo-feudal state of dependence and control that the Monsanto model inflicts on farmers the world over. The argument that Monsanto is concerned with feeding the world is despicable in its insincerity. It is the application of the worst type of rapacious industrial control over food production with little to no regard for long term sustainability or externalities. It is a dangerous, exploitative, and unsustainable approach to industrial food production.

          • Peter Olins

            Polysyllabic words are no substitute for a rational argument.

          • agscienceliterate

            Every single thing you say is erroneous. But you have obviously gotten your talking points from somewhere. Want to share what you read, to fill your mind with such garbage? What you read reflects directly on how you, uh, “think.” Or not.

          • Kevin Perkins

            60 billion dollar industry, means Rachel, like her folks, is just one of millions waking up to the nightmare.

            If you tell people to eat organic, I bet it is to dismiss the labeling issue, rather than help the reader.

          • agscienceliterate

            Your bet would be wrong. I tell people constantly to eat organic and non-GMO certified, when they won’t accept the science and the safety about GE foods. As Farmer Sue said here a few years ago, some people’s minds are “slammed shut tighter than a hog’s ass at fly time.” For them, food that is conveniently labeled organic and non-GMO is a godsend. Tens and thousands of products, clearly labeled in large letters, just for you.

          • Kevin Perkins

            Thank you

          • Jim Gordon

            No thank you.

        • Kevin Perkins

          I disagree

          • agscienceliterate

            Well, of course you disagree! You are completely blind to the fact that Rachel directly shills on behalf of her parent’s anti-GE pro organic business. Hypocrites usually are pretty blind, and you are no exception.

        • Kevin

          Right. Sure.
          Insightful or brilliant aren’t terms I would use to describe you. Gimme a break.

          • agscienceliterate

            But… But…. You accuse me of being a paid shill! Thank you for your complements on my brilliance and scintillating comments that certainly are worth shill payment, in your book. So now you are scrambling to deny that I am brilliant, insightful, intelligent, and persuasive enough to be worthy of shill payment, when you accused me of that before.
            Kevin, you are a very confused little puppy.

          • Kevin

            I try to avoid words like schill because I tell it like it is. Scramble? I have no reason for that.
            I don’t mind you insulting me. Thick skin is something I do have.
            If I had a puppy it would be smarter than…

      • agscienceliterate

        Shill? How much should I get paid? By whom, precisely? And how about the fact that I say over and over and over and over and over again that you should eat organic and non-GMO certified food, if you loathe and fear GE foods? Does the organic industry pay me, too?

      • Kevin Perkins

        Who are you saying is the shill?
        The majority of commenters here?
        Or Rachel?

        • agscienceliterate

          Depends on who benefits, doesn’t it? I don’t get paid. I do this for fun. Rachel lives with her parents, who directly benefit from the anti-GE pro organic industry. You figure it out.

        • Biron_1

          It’s difficult to assess Rachel’s motives.

          It is quite probable however, that she is influenced by her environment and not a dispassionate idealist.

      • agscienceliterate

        I’m flagging this comment also, for its inappropriate vulgarity.

  • Haidee Swanby

    wow you guys are afraid of a child. Your pro arguments must be extremely fragile. This is a low point of the pro-gm lobby and that really is saying something.
    But the technology is unravelling spectacularly all on its own any way – weed resistance, insect resistance, far too expensive and very little that’s new in the pipeline, a far cry from all the promises made 2 decades ago. GM crops are last century tech based on outdated science. Just give it enough rope …

    • agscienceliterate

      Haidee, no need to be afraid of a child. Poor Rachel is just an ignorant young woman who parrots what she has been taught by her parents, and shills for her parent’s naturopathic anti-GE business. She is either smart, and will soon mature and start reading and thinking for herself, or she will just become yet another misinformed Internet salesperson like Oz, Mercola, Food Babe, and David Wolfe for woo pitching that any scientist will just ignore. I’m betting on the former, though. The facts have long been in about biotech ag’s safety, efficacy, increased yield, and much better environmental sustainability relative to water us rage, less soil compaction, less tilling, less runoff, less air pollution from tractor diesel, and way higher yields.
      Pro-science, not pro-GE. Start reading and stop pontificating.

  • Ionias Georgi

    obey.conform.achieve bliss.big brother always right. no need to question.

  • Kegan Telford

    I am a farmer, everything that child discusses are not true, i haved lived around GMO all my life. I raise them, eat them, and make a living from them. GMO is better. GMO is the thing many people contradict when they are just afraid of things they do not know. So called “Rachel Parent” does not know anything that she talks about because, she looked it up on the internet. The internet can, and always is misleading, whatever she is up to she is misinformed.

  • linked1

    Fuck this bullshit article. This is nothing m ore than a smear campaign by the GMO lobbyists against a 14 yr old girl who called them out on their bullshit.

    • agscienceliterate

      Do you always froth at the mouth when you read something you don’t agree with? Have you had your rabies shot? Do you not see how clearly she shills for her parents’ “all natural” business? How did you miss that? Or does your smear campaign only go in one direction?

    • agscienceliterate

      Your foul vulgarity has been flagged again.

  • Kevin Perkins

    She probably chose the school project on the suggestion of her father, who wanted her to become interested in what they were doing. And she did.

    It was already a thriving multi million dollar business, they didn’t need any help. If you have a problem with “labeling” what others eat, than (YOU) have something to hide.

    • agscienceliterate

      If you want labels, there are tens of thousands of products that are labeled either organic or non-GMO certified, or both. Big letters, just for you.

    • Biron_1

      We (not me) have a problem with gratuitous regulation. I do not want labeling imposed on products I purchase, although I am fine with voluntary labeling.

      Concerning “something to hide” you ought to look at the anti-GMO / organic movement which has been “hiding” the non-effect of their products.

  • Boetie McBoetface

    This effectively makes her a real-life actual shill.

    • agscienceliterate

      She does seem to meet the definition, according to all the anti-GE folks who pull out the shill card every time genetic engineering is defended or explained by scientists and farmers. And yet, as you can see from numerous comments below, the anti-GE folks are scrambling and falling all over themselves to defend her and impugn pure motives to what she is doing. The irony is supreme!

  • JR

    If there is one thing I’ve started to realize as of late, it’s ‘facts don’t matter that much’, especially when it comes to debating public policy issues. To me, being scientifically minded means you’re open to new information which could change your outlook. But to many others, it’s an issue of truthiness and emotion: what “feels” right to them. We can illustrate the science till we’re blue in the face, but some people’s opinions are never going to change.

    But don’t get me wrong, websites like this and outreach by great people like Professor Folta are still great. At least you can reach people on the fence or just totally ignorant of some issues, before they get sucked into the fact-free zone of the various anti-science movements.

    On a side note, the issues remind me of that idiotic cold supplement “Airborne” and how it was advertised as “made by a teacher.” As if that’s supposed to inspire confidence in the product. But that’s just the nature of the supplements business – preying on the ignorant through a largely unregulated space.

  • David Zaruk

    Using children has emotional weight that can counter any reasonable argument

  • agscienceliterate

    She’s no longer a child. This is her website. She’s still promoting the same misinformation and scare tactics, and — surprise, surprise! — she’s selling stuff.
    http://www.kidsrighttoknow.com
    Trying to be the newest Food Babe, I guess. Competing for who can be the most uninformative while pulling in moola from the gullible. Ugh.

    • Michael McCarthy

      Oh brother. “Toxic levels of roundup being detected in air, soil, river and groundwater” “2,4-D, the main component of Agent Orange”. Right out of the playbook!

      • agscienceliterate

        Whaddya think? Is she going to take down Food Babe in the race for the bottom?

        • Michael McCarthy

          I dunno. I guess it depends on if she is willing to use her tiits to sell her message or not.

          • agscienceliterate

            Awww, ya don’t think her winsome smile and fearmongering with made-up chicken little stories are enuf on their own “merits”? Soon she, too, will be taking vacays and posting pics on her website, as she visits Third World countries (whose residents would love genetically engineered food), and spending her shill money on the beach, just like Food Babe. She’s gonna be a contenda, I’m tellin ya.

  • Mark Smith

    It takes enormous stones to attack a little girl. Accussing her of selling out. Especially when this rag is known far and wide for being a “hit for hire” that will write anything for anyone as long as they get paid. ya, not cool.

    • agscienceliterate

      Attacking a little girl? Don’t be daft. She’s not a little girl. She knows exactly what she’s doing. She shills for her parent’s company, and for her own junk products on her own website. She knowingly continues to promote blather, and her competition with the food babe for activist misinformation.

      Stones, indeed. You’re the first person to whine with shill accusations, against scientists and farmers who really do know something about genetically engineered to crops, and are not benefiting directly like Miss Rachel does. Hypocrite much? You would do well to grow a pair of stones yourself, and own up to your own disingenuous hypocrisy.

    • Biron_1

      No, it takes chutzpah for an activist organization to insulate itself from criticism by hiding behind a teenager. The activists know no boundaries for decency.

  • NecktopPC

    RE: “We’ve known Professor Folta for years; he is whistle clean and a dogged advocate for transparency – Folta’s $25,000 from Monsanto was an “unrestricted gift” (university jargon for no deliverables expected) to cover the cost of travel and other incidentals for unpaid talks to various organizations to teach scientists how to effectively engage the public in discussions on genetic engineering – Genetic Literacy Project”

    The Puppetmasters of Academia (or What the NY Times Left out)
    Read more: https://www.independentsciencenews.org/science-media/the-puppetmasters-of-academia-ny-times-left-out/

    By allowing companies to donate money to university foundations, even though they’re “earmarked” for a specific person, the transactions remain completely hidden from public scrutiny — including FOIA requests.

    The idea that people would have concerns about GMOs because it’s “easier” to process the idea that they might be harmful than to actually understand the science sounds just like the kind of propaganda the biotech industry would embrace and support.
    Read more: https://www.sott.net/article/316707-Scientific-American-Another-organization-co-opted-by-Monsanto

    • Good4U

      So, do you understand the science of biotechnology (what you term GMOs)? Go ahead, dazzle us with your brilliance. So far, all we have seen is baffling with bullshit.

  • The Global News Canada writer spells her name “Allison Vuchnich”. You spelled it three different ways, all wrong. You may want to put that in your spell check dictionary.

  • NecktopPC

    RE: “Worldwide, it’s (Canadian natural health products industry) a $400 billion industry — unlabeled and unregulated, with no purity standards or testing – Genetic Literacy Project”

    What seems more obvious to me, is that the authors have a personal issue with the Parent family, and their franchise business success – and a bigger issue with the growing popularity with the ‘natural health products industry’ as oppose to the unnatural GMO health concerns industry.

    Its made obviously so, by their blatant inclusion of misinformation, contained within this story. For instance; their erroneous remark regarding NHPs or “dietary supplement products and dietary ingredients” being unlabeled and unregulated.

    Here are excerpts from both; our FDA and, the Canadian equivalent:

    FDA regulates both finished dietary supplement products and dietary ingredients. FDA regulates dietary supplements under a different set of regulations than those covering “conventional” foods and drug products. Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 – Manufacturers and distributors of dietary supplements and dietary ingredients are prohibited from marketing products that are adulterated or misbranded. That means that these firms are responsible for evaluating the safety and labeling of their products before marketing to ensure that they meet all the requirements of DSHEA and FDA regulations – http://www.fda.gov/Food/DietarySupplements/

    All natural health products (NHPs) sold in Canada are subject to the Natural Health Products Regulations, which came into force on January 1, 2004 – The Regulations help give Canadians access to a wide range of natural health products that are safe, effective and of high quality – To be legally sold in Canada, all natural health products must have a product licence, and the Canadian sites that manufacture, package, label and import these products must have site licences – The safety and efficacy of NHPs and their health claims must be supported by proper evidence so that consumers and Health Canada know the products are indeed safe and effective. Evidence may include clinical trial data or references to published studies, journals, pharmacopoeias and traditional resources – http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodnatur/about-apropos/index-eng.php

    I could not find any evidence of the natural health products industry being a a $400 billion industry worldwide.

    • Michael McCarthy

      From your own citation:
      “That means that these firms are responsible for evaluating the safety and labeling of their products before marketing to ensure that they meet all the requirements of DSHEA and FDA regulations”
      Derp. No submissions to the FDA=unregulated

      • NecktopPC

        Perhaps they should have HELM AG, MONSANTO, SYNGENTA, NUFARM or even PFIZER, come up with some unpublished studies for them eh?

        • Michael McCarthy

          Oh brother. Back to the unpublished studies argument. No thanks.

          • NecktopPC

            “…unpublished studies argument”?

            No argument! Just fact and evidence, which you and your pro-GMO activists cohorts can’t handle, you mean.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Sure thing Lowell.

  • NecktopPC

    Any unsuspecting person, reading this story, may well think, or perhaps even believe, that the italicized text to the left of the top photograph of Rachel Parent, were her own “words’. But they are not her words.

    The authors of this story, took poetic licence, and formulated those slanted words themselves.

    Below the photo of Rachel, is the TEDxToronto video presentation, and of which, the authors urge us to watch.

    If anyone does take the time or the initiative to watch that video, it would become quite clear, that her words were twisted and spun by the authors of this story. Here is what Rachel actually said:

    “Imagine; you just got home from school, or work, and, you’re starving – its too early for dinner, so you grab a bag of corn chips, and start munching. As you reach into the bag to grab another chip, you notice something on the package label, (currently nonexistent) new and improved, now made with genetically engineered corn. Your first thought is; wow, science is awesome, this corn must have more nutrience, or maybe it can be grown with less water, or something equally as cool right? If only that was true. What if I told you, that this corn was not engineered to taste better, or to give you more nutrience, or to be grown with less water, or to grow faster. But instead, was engineered to have its own internal insecticide. You know, a chemical that would rupture the stomachs of bugs when they try to eat the corn. Sound like a tasty after school snack to you?”

    No, that sounds like a recipe for disaster, not only for consumers of that so-called food, but for the planets whole ecosystem too.

    I must say this however; I agree wholeheartedly in urging everyone, whom may come across this story; watch Rachel’s video.

    The world would be a better place if there were more people, like Rachel Parent.

    • Jackson

      Sounds scary. So do you think we should go ahead and ban all plants that produce their own internal pesticides that can’t be washed off?

      • NecktopPC

        Your thoughts are either confused (GMO technology) or you are trying to load your question.

        I would agree; all plants genetically engineered (GMOs) to produce ‘their’ own pesticides, should indeed be banned – and indeed; such pesticides cannot be washed off.

        • Farmer with a Dell

          Better get started banning, DropseatPC, ’cause you certainly have your work cut out for you…

          http://www.pnas.org/content/87/19/7777.full.pdf

          Read and learn, DropseatPC, read and learn for a change. Lots of plants with internal pesticides that “cannot be washed off”. But you’re gonna single out a GE plant that’s demonstrated to be just as safe, or safer than all the naturally occurring ones? Your dropseat is flapping loose and your arse is hanging out, dude.

          • NecktopPC

            Just try and lear from what you, read; “all plants genetically engineered (GMOs) to produce ‘their’ own pesticides, should indeed be banned.”

            What you posted is just more DroneFarmerBS.

          • agscienceliterate

            But other plants that have engineered themselves to have their own pesticides are ok with you.
            Geez, you have flunked science yet again.

          • NecktopPC

            “plants that have engineered themselves”?

            HAHAHAHAHA!

          • Good4U

            You can laugh at it all you want, but your ignorance of your own ignorance on that topic is telling. Yes, plants have evolved the production of their own pesticides for the purpose of killing and deterring other organisms (pests) from predating or infesting them. Instead of laughing, you should study up on plant biochemistry and the toxicology of naturally occurring pesticides. You might surprise yourself.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Try not to get too upset, but Bobblehead won’t be making anymore comments here.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Heh, heh, won’t be broken hearted over it. We are assured our minimum quota of muttering absurdity from other obtuse crackpots without DropseatPC dropping by to take the usual rambling long-winded dump.

        • agscienceliterate

          HAHAHAHAHA!
          Many plants produce their own pesticides already. Which “cannot be washed off.”
          HAHAHA!

          • NecktopPC

            HAHAHAHAHA!

        • Jackson

          Well, you make it sound like having pesticides in plants is an awful thing, and super dangerous to eat. Why do you think it matters how the pesticide got there?

          Or maybe eating plants which produce their own pesticides is unavoidable, and we should determine what we eat based on whether those pesticides are harmful to humans in the quantities ingested.

          • NecktopPC

            Why do you not think it matters how the pesticide got there?

            You can stop spraying a certain pesticide is you wish, but if the plant is already genetically engineered (GMOs) to produce its own; you’ve got to eat it…enjoy!

          • agscienceliterate

            Ah! And yessss, entirely predictable response!

          • NecktopPC

            Your attempt at reverse psychology and co-opting my lines; its juvenile to say the least.

          • Jackson

            Ok, but I’m talking about plants that have not been engineered to produce their own pesticides, but do anyways. On both hands you have plants producing their own pesticides that can’t be washed off, why is the engineered one worse than the non-engineered one?

          • NecktopPC

            RE: “I’m talking about plants that have not been engineered to produce their own pesticides, but do anyways – Jackson”

            If you say so.

          • Jackson

            Any thoughts on why a plant engineered to produce its own pesticides is worse to eat than a plant that produces pesticides without being engineered to do so?

          • NecktopPC

            Is this some sort of a riddle?

          • Jackson

            No, it is a straight forward question.

          • NecktopPC

            Your idea of straight forward, is by no means, the same as mine.

          • Jackson

            Plant A has been engineered to produce its own pesticides. Plant B produces its own pesticides without having been engineered to do so.

            It seems like you are saying Plant A is more dangerous to eat than Plant B. I am asking why you think that is so.

          • NecktopPC

            Plant A?

            Plant B?

            Why are you finding it so difficult to be specific?

            Its simply not very scientific either.

          • Jackson

            I’m trying to make it generally applicable. Why are you finding it so hard to give a straight forward answer?

            Do I even have your position correct? Do you think plants that are engineered to produce a pesticide are more dangerous to eat than plants that produce their own pesticide without being engineered?

          • NecktopPC

            Why are you finding it so hard to construct a straight forward question?

            Why persist to be so vague?

          • So to be more specific:
            Plant A (engineered)= Bt corn¨
            Plant B (non engineered) = potato, zucchini, pumkins, almonds, pea,soybean….

          • Jason

            It’s just his clumsy effort to dodge what is a rather simple question.

          • agscienceliterate

            Jackson, you are being logical and reasonable again. Watch for his response…..

          • NecktopPC

            Please; if you choose to eat products which have been genetically engineered (GMOs) to produce pesticides, which are sure the part and parcel of what you will be eating, then go for it.

          • Jackson

            Can do. Cry and Vip proteins aren’t dangerous for humans, so I’ll take your advice and keep on not worrying about eating any products that might have those proteins in them.

          • NecktopPC

            Good 4U2 – and I know where you can get a great bulk deal on MON810

          • Jackson

            Isn’t MON810 a line of field corn? I don’t have any livestock to feed, so I don’t think I would be interested in your deal.

            Edit: Or is MON810 the name of the plasmid? I am not entirely familiar with Monsanto’s naming convention.

          • NecktopPC

            Yes; GMO (pesticide producing) corn, grow in a field. That’s right!

            Risk of contamination of teosinte by genetically modified maize MON810 in Spain

          • Jackson

            Yes; GMO (pesticide producing) corn, grow in a field. That’s right!

            *facepalm* Obviously, you’re not a golfer.

          • NecktopPC

            Are you changing the subject to golf now?

          • Jackson

            No, it’s an allusion to The Big Lebowski. Some hired muscle find a bowling ball and ask, “what is this?” The sarcastic reply (because who doesn’t know what a bowling ball is?) is, “obviously, you’re not a golfer.”

            The reason I make this allusion is because you are apparently unaware that the term “field corn” refers to a specific type of corn grown to feed livestock and unsuitable for people to eat, and not just “corn that was grown in a field.”

          • NecktopPC

            ‘Big Lebowski’ shmouski.

            I was eating so-called field corn probably before you were born and definitely before “sweet corn”.

            RE: …”field corn” refers to a specific type of corn grown to feed livestock and unsuitable for people to eat – Jackson”

            Field corn, as you are thinking, simply (these days) refers to corn which is purposely left unharvested in the field, to dry out.

            If you had made the calculated decision to pick that very (‘field’) corn while the kernels were still soft, just the same as sweet corn starts off, there would be absolutely no reason why, not to eat it – as a matter of fact; i never eat sweet corn and prefer what you refer to as field corn.

            You are obviously unaware that field corn is not a “specific type”, but rather; sweet corn is.

          • Jason

            Field corn is just as much a “specific type” as sweet corn is. There just happens to be a much bigger market for that specific type.

            And let’s just say that I don’t buy for a minute that you’re eating field of corn on the regular.

          • NecktopPC

            RE: ” I don’t buy for a minute that you’re eating field of corn on the regular – Jason”

            Quite frankly; I am not concerned with what you buy.

            I grew up eating, what you and your friend Jackson, believe is a specific corn (“field”) as opposed to just corn. Its all we ate before corn hybridization, or sweet corn or that peaches and cream crap.

          • Jason

            Field corn is just the common name for it. It’s actual name is Yellow Dent corn. And I’m afraid unless you came over from Asia on the Bering Strait, you don’t pre-date sweet corn. You most likely had no idea what you were eating.

          • NecktopPC

            Fifty
            years ago, sweet corn wasn’t all that sweet and had a short shelf-life,
            which made it difficult for grocery stores to stock it.
            http://news.illinois.edu/II/03/0807/sweetcorn.html

          • Jason

            Lol… Ìdíot. That pretty much describes all sweet corn unless it’s frozen.

            So then you’re abandoning the “back then sweet corn was just corn” crap?

          • Jackson

            Field corn isn’t a specific variety, but it does refer to a subset of corn not intended to be eaten unprocessed by people. Sure, it’s edible, but field corn is certainly not “any corn that was grown in a field.”

          • NecktopPC

            RE: “Field corn isn’t a specific variety, but it does refer to a subset of corn not intended to be eaten unprocessed by people – Jackson”

            Last time: field corn simply refers to corn which is left standing in the field, unharvested – and at which time, after many days past maturity, the corn’s kernels simply dry out, and become hard. If you eat ‘field corn’, as you call it, before that happens, it is perfectly okay to eat – and before sweet corns; that type of corn was very much popular as the corn to eat.

          • Aguirre15

            Its dent corn and, yes, you can eat it while it still has enough moisture but why would you want to do that?

          • Michael McCarthy

            Not to mention Americans didn’t really eat it that way until Golden Bantam was developed in 1902. The natives did (despite the fact that there are no sugars, only starch).

          • NecktopPC

            The dents are only apparent after the corn has been left standing in the filed, unharvested and, consequently, the kernels dry out, and from the reducing moisture content in the kernels they shrink or shrivel, and the tops of the kernels ‘dent’ in. .

            Its just corn.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Risk of contamination of teosinte by genetically modified maize MON810 in Spain”
            teosinte is from Mexico, not Spain, maroon. Also, teosinte can’t be contaminated.
            “Teosinte is a wild relative of maize that is native to Mexico and unable to grow in the United States. Although closely related, teosinte does not interbreed naturally with cultivated corn”
            https://www.warf.org/documents/technology-summary/P140120US01.pdf

          • NecktopPC

            I think you’re one who has been “maroon”ed on a planet where there is no other form of intelligence.

            Teosinte was discovered in Spain for the first time in 2009.

          • Michael McCarthy

            No. Teosinte is the wild ancestor of corn from Mexico.
            “Teosinte is the common name of a wild grass that grows in several areas of Mexico and Central America. There are several species of wild plants that have the common name of teosinte.”
            http://maize.uga.edu/index.php?loc=ancestors
            Sustainable Pulse isn’t a reliable source, Lowell.

          • NecktopPC

            If only you had a clue, of what you don’t know, that you think you do.

            If only you had a pulse.

          • Michael McCarthy

            I’ve provided not one but two citations. Teosinte is an invasive growing in some parts of Spain. It wasn’t “discovered” there. I also provided a citation that it contains genes which prevent it from acquiring genes from corn. What have you provided, Lowell? Nothing. Don’t you have people to harass on Vac Troof?

          • NecktopPC

            “…discovered in Spain for the first time in 2009.”

            First time?

            Maroon?

            RE: “Don’t you have people to harass on Vac Troof? – Michael McCarthy”

            Anyone reading through the comments on this thread, would quite easily see that it was you whom decided to jump on my case.

            I provided something which you knew not, how to handle, underwear boy.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Only 3 sources list it as being “discovered in Spain for the first time in 2009”. Unsurprisingly, all anti-GMO advocate sites. All, incorrectly, claim that GM corn will contaminate it (although not possible as I already provided citation on).
            I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that teosinte is even growing in Spain, since there is nothing available from the Spanish agricultural authorities or any other government office acknowledging its presence.

          • NecktopPC

            RE: “Unsurprisingly, all anti-GMO advocate sites – Michael McCarthy”

            Did you expect me to provide a pro GMO site, as a source?

          • Michael McCarthy

            No, I would like you to provide one from ANY OTHER SOURCE other than one with an agenda.

          • Aguirre15

            What?? The meso american indians in Mexico bred corn from teosinte nearly 2000 years ago.

          • NecktopPC

            “Teosinte was discovered in Spain for the first time in 2009.”

            That simply means, that it was not in Spain before 2009.

            You too know not of what I speak – ignorance might be bliss.

          • Jason

            Mon810 is the name of Monsanto’s first Bt event.

          • Jackson

            Ah, thanks. So if it is a specific event, that means it is a specific transgenic line of a specific variety. The first event would have been in a type of field corn.

          • Jason

            Right. That Bt event is bred into virtually every Bt corn hybrid on the planet at this point. It may also be used in Bt sweet corn, but I don’t know about that.

          • Jackson

            Ok, so all maize varieties they sell that have had that original event introgressed into them are labeled something like “hybrid x with MON 810?” MON810 isn’t a specific product you could buy?

          • Jason

            Exactly. Each Bt event produces a specific cry protein. That was the first big one and hybrids containing it used to be marketed under the name YieldGard. Now, most hybrids have 3-5 different Bt events in them to help with efficacy and to combat resistance to any one. They market the combination of events under different names.

          • Aguirre15

            Yes, MON 810 is an event number. That transgene must be introgressed into base germplasm or conventional hybrids which are in and of themselves high quality and top performing. A transgene is really only as good as the hybrid it is put in.

    • agscienceliterate

      You mean shills for their parents’ businesses?
      If I had a GE seed company, and if I had a kid getting press for demonizing non-GE foods, would you feel the same?
      Ah, no — I get it. It ‘s only ok if they shill for organic!
      Hypocrisy and irony at its finest.

      • NecktopPC

        If you had, if you had?

        But the thing is, you don’t have.

        This is all you seem to have.

        • agscienceliterate

          Huh? Yes, that was what is known as a hypothetical question. Intended to get you to think.
          I obviously overestimated your ability to do so.

          • NecktopPC

            “Huh?”

            HAHAHA!

            Don’t hurt yourself eh.

    • Aguirre15

      Bull. Bt is a naturllly occuring protein which happens to have a very specific effect on a limited spectrum of insects. It has NO effect on humans which is why It is also the most popular “insecticide” sprayed on organic crops.

      • NecktopPC

        You and your scientist fan, are either both, willfully ignorant, or simply playing so. If you two do not comprehend, that there is a distinct difference between naturally occurring Bt and that of Bt (gene) which is genetically engineered (GMO) into the plant, whereby the entire plant produces Bt toxins forever, then your simply out to another GMO lunch.

        • Michael McCarthy

          Why do I get the feeling you are Lowell Hubbs?

          • NecktopPC

            Perhaps your underwear is too tight, boy.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Or perhaps I’ve hit the nail on the head. The writing style is unmistakable.

        • Aguirre15

          Its an expressed protein. Do you know what happens to that protein in the digestive system of the animal which consumes it?

          • Michael McCarthy

            This is undoubtedly Lowell Hubbs, he is immune to facts and reason.

          • NecktopPC

            GMO Bt Corn is expressing pesticides dude – and you too can eat that crap if you wish.

          • Aguirre15

            Are you completely obtuse? Most “pesticides” are synthetic inorganic chemicals which may or may not break down in the gut and are usually toxic to one degree or another. Bt is a protein which has NO inherent toxicity to humans or mammals and which breaks down quickly into its constituent amino acids and ultimately DNA just like all of the many other proteins the animal consumes.

          • NecktopPC

            Your are obviously deficient in your knowledge of Bt, as it relates to GMO Bt Corn and or other products.

            The Bt toxin expressed by GM Bt plants is different from natural Bt, both in terms of its structure and its mode of action.

            Bt plants continuously produce Cry toxin during vegetation. As a result, these Bt plants do not comply with the principle of integrated pest management, as Cry toxin administration cannot be limited to the duration of the occurrence of the insect pest targeted. Bt insecticides and Bt plants may also differ in their active ingredients (bacterial protoxins and plant-expressed preactivated toxin), which in addition to pesticide registration issues, has pronounced effects on Cry toxin resistance and environmental persistence in stubble.
            http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-94-007-4497-4_10

            Published, peer-reviewed studies, particularly in the area of potential human health impacts, are rare. For instance, the EPA’s human health assessment of Bt crops cites 22 unpublished corporate studies, with initially only one ancillary literature citation (EPA BRAD, 2001b, pp. IIB32-IIB35).
            http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/freese_safetytestingandregulationofgeneticallyebgineeredfoods_nov212004_62269.pdf

          • Aguirre15

            I guess you would rather all those small holders in Asia and Africa strap on the backpack sprayer and spray toxic insecticides every 5-7 days in order to try to bring in a paying crop. You are a detestable snob. How many of these farmers have you ever talked to? Have you ever walked their fields with them and listened to their stories?

          • So is it better to spray fruits and vegetables with living Bt bacteria? it is frequently claimed, that the sprayed bacteria can be washed off, but where is the proof? Did it ever go through safety testing? Given my experience with plant tissue culture , it is actually quite hard to get rid of bacteria residing inside of plant tissues. If the same safety standards would apply for organic pesticides as for GMO approval, Bt spray would not be allowed.

    • Good4U

      Neck, why do you keep coming back to this site? You’re getting zero traction from your posts. You don’t know anything, and nobody gives a rat’s anus about anything that you rant about. Most people who read these articles really care about biotechnology and wish to learn something about it. That’s why I come back, again and again, and why I try to teach others who have genuine interest and the intellect to support such interest. At one point I really did wonder about your intent for being here, but very soon thereafter I came to realize that all you want to do is waste others’ time.

  • Aguirre15

    This is such a scam. A mob of snake oil peddlers happen to have a very attractive and articulate daughter who they can set up as a shill. Then if someone asks her about the biology of the subject or otherwise looks at her cross eyed they will have gotten their microaggression and can scream bully and sexist. This is where we are in this new facebook world.. Science be damned.

    • NecktopPC

      It’s unusual to watch one of the world’s most powerful editors in scientific publishing play with a marionette puppet.

      But Dr. Fiona Godlee, editor of the BMJ, specializes in the unexpected.

      The puppet she’s holding is dressed as a doctor, complete with a stethoscope around its neck. Its strings represent the hidden hand of the pharmaceutical industry.

      Godlee keeps it on her desk to remind her of the dark forces at work in science and medicine. And she is blunt about the results.

      “I think we have to call it what it is. It is the corruption of the scientific process.”
      http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/bmj-fiona-godlee-science-1.3541769

      RE: “Science be damned – Aguirre15”

      You may be onto something, with that one – and don’t be naive to think, that its not affecting this GMO science too.

      • Aguirre15

        As one who is only able to walk and lead a reasonably normal life thru the miracle of pharmaceutical biotechnology and who is proud to have played some small role in the development of agricultural biotechnology I find your remark to be highly offensive. It’s time you devoted a moment of your thoughts to farmers around the world and the great benefits they receive from GM seeds instead of your selfish, snobby and sanctimonious political positions.

        • NecktopPC

          So; am I to simply accept that its okay for you to be selfish, snobby and sanctimonious in your obvious political positions, just because you sing for the pharmaceutical biotechnology? Don’t hold your breath

          You easily and very succintly jump on any opportunity to condemn others, simply because they do not agree with your opinions or positions on GMOs – calling them ‘a mob of snake oil peddlers’ while referring to Rachel and her parents is not snobby and sanctimonious of you, in your eyes – and tha should be accepted on a public website forum?

          There is a big gap, I think, between pharmaceutical biotechnology and, GMO biotechnology, especially when it comes to screwing with food.

          I can only imagine what the hundreds of thousands of victims (Thalidomide, VIOXX, Fen-Phen, Baycol, etc, etc) of the pharmaceutical biotechnology think about your, selfish sentiments.

          Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and the Myth of Safe and Effective Drugs – http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2282014
          https://therefusers.com/institutional-corruption-of-pharmaceuticals-and-the-myth-of-safe-and-effective-drugs/

          JLME Issue on Institutional Corruption and the Pharmaceutical Industry – http://ethics.harvard.edu/news/jlme-issue-institutional-corruption-and-pharmaceutical-industry

          • Aguirre15

            ….and the interests of farmers be damned. Typical.

  • morphd

    Jeff Holiday posted a humorous take on Rachel Parent last year.
    It has some ‘colorful’ language so you might not want to play it with young children in the room.

    • agscienceliterate

      Great video! I did send all the little children out of the room first, but forgot and left the parrot in the room, and he kept repeating “Bullshit! Bullshit!” (I wonder where he learned that word.)

      Hey, Rache, what’s in Nutrition House’s stuff? Ingredients and stuff? You got any problems with disclosing what’s in the products that your daddy’s $4 Billion company sells? Any transparency there, Rache? Naaaaah, didn’t think so. Hey, Rache — can you pronounce H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y? Naaaah, didn’t think so. Daddy’s widdle baby is spewing garbage. And she’s 16 or 17 now, so there is no excuse.

      Now I got to get the parrot moved into another room. He is saying “F— F—-” all over the place now. I gotta teach him to say “Organic shill! Organic shill!” next.

      • morphd

        Glad you enjoyed it & I love the parrot image!
        Note Jeff’s correction re: 4 billion – that’s apparently the Canadian organic market – not Nutrition House (see at 4:20)

        • agscienceliterate

          Arrrrrggggh! Yes, of course it’s not $4 billion. Damn parrot was making too much noise.
          This report says it’s worth between $2.5 and $5 million. That may be Canadian dollars, I dunno, but it’s a nice chunk of change, and ole Rache sure isn’t hurting for nice school clothes or a pony.
          http://www.manta.com/c/mm274z3/nutrition-house

  • mkassowitz

    Hilarious. GLP, a Monsanto mouthpiece, accusing a teenager of being a tool of evil natural marketers. Keep digging for that conspiracy boys. Yes, that is sarcasm.